STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RONALD HUNTER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appealed a sentencing departure from guidelines based on drug addiction. The appellate court affirmed the departure, finding the state had itself suggested the Barbera basis for deviation at trial and therefore could not subsequently challenge the trial court's decision on appeal.
The court affirmed the sentencing departure. The state cannot subsequently claim that the trial court erred in deviating from the guidelines when the state itself suggested the basis for departure (Barbera grounds) at trial and the state's representative prepared the sentencing scoresheet.
[1] A trial court may deviate from sentencing guidelines when drug addiction is a proper ground, as approved by Barbera v. …
[2] When the state suggests or agrees to a deviation from sentencing guidelines based on a recognized legal precedent, it cannot later claim error in that deviation.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court deviated from the guidelines on the authority of Barbera v. State, 505 So.2d 413 (Fla.1987), a case in which the Florida Supreme Court approved drug addiction as a proper ground for deviating from the sentencing guidelines”
Establishes that the trial court's departure was based on legally recognized grounds under Barbera
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRonald Hunter participated in a drug rehabilitation program and was working at the time of sentencing. At the change of plea hearing, the prosecutor s…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm. The record in this case explicitly demonstrates that the trial court deviated from the guidelines on the authority of Barbera v. State, 505 So. 2d 413 (Fla.1987), a case in which the Florida Supreme Court approved drug addiction as a proper ground for deviating from the sentencing guidelines. In fact, the transcript of the change of plea hearing reflects that the state was the party that suggested the use of Barbera. After an extensive discussion of the defendant’s successful partic ipation in a drug rehabilitation program, the court indicated it wanted to give him an opportunity to reform and stay out of prison. The state responded:
THE COURT: He’s been working on a program, State. Do you want to work out a plea with him?
MR. CAPUTO [for the state]: It would have to be a Barbara [sic] plea, Judge. THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I’m working and I’m going to BARC.
MS. KEATING [for the defense]: Well, I can ask the questions that are required for a Barbara [sic] motion if you would be willing to do that, Judge.
MR. CAPUTO: Why don’t you just take the plea today and do the sentence about March 1st?
MS KEATING: I don’t know. I’m worried about that in terms of — I want it all done at the same time so there isn’t any question.
MR. CAPUTO: I’m just trying to help.
The sentencing guidelines scoresheet, including the portion that was supposed to reflect the trial court’s reasons for departure was also prepared by the state, and should have contained a reference to Barb-era. In such circumstances, it has been held that the state cannot subsequently claim that the trial court erred in deviating from the guidelines without written reasons. Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063 (Fla.1992); State v. Salley, 601 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
This case is a good example of the waste of appellate resources. Initially, the state’s representative at trial, being obviously aware of the trial court’s reason for departure (since he called it to the trial court’s attention), should have placed the reason in the proper place when he prepared the sentencing guideline scoresheet. Next, being obviously aware of the supreme court’s decision in Barbera approving such departure sentences, the state’s decision to appeal the judge’s action is puzzling. Of course, defense counsel is also at fault for not being certain that the score-sheet contained the court’s reason for deviation. All of this is topped by the state ignoring all of the above in its appellate presentations.
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD and GUNTHER, JJ„ concur. HERSEY, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hunter, 610 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…the Florida Supreme Court, have concluded under similar circumstances that a downward departure sentence should not be overturned. See Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063 (Fla.1992); State v. Salley, 601 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); State v. Hunter, 606 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The defendant was obviously relying on the trial court to enter the required order and he should not be penalized when the order is not timely filed. On the merits, the facts of this case are virtually identical to those involv…
Authorities Cited
- Rhoda Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1992)
- Barbera v. State, 505 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1987)
- State v. Salley, 601 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)