GARY ALAN MOCK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Gary Alan Mock challenges a sentencing departure for accessory after the fact. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to file written reasons for the departure within the required timeframe, violating the mandate in State v. Lyles.
A trial court's failure to file written reasons for a sentencing departure within the required timeframe—the same date as sentencing or the next business day—violates Florida sentencing law and requires reversal and remand for resentencing within the guidelines.
[1] A written reason for a sentencing departure must be filed on the same date as the sentencing hearing.
[2] A trial court's failure to file written reasons for a sentencing departure on the same date as the sentencing hearing requires reversal and remand for resentencing within…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“It is important that these written reasons are entered by the trial judge on the same date as the sentencing. These written reasons should, if at all possible, be filed on the same date; however, a filing on the next business day does not require a new sentencing proceeding.”
Establishes the strict procedural requirement for filing written reasons for sentencing departure from State v. Lyles
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMock was convicted of accessory after the fact. The trial court imposed a guidelines departure sentence of five years imprisonment. The trial court or…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sentencing Guidelines Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
DIAMANTIS, Judge.
Gary Alan Mock appeals a guidelines departure sentence of five years imprisonment which was imposed following his conviction for the felony of accessory after the fact.1 Because the written reason for the departure was not filed until some five months after it was prepared, we reverse and remand this matter for resentencing within the guidelines.
The action of filing written reasons five months after sentencing is contrary to the clear mandate of State v. Lyles, 576 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1991):
We adhere to our statement of options available to a trial court when imposing a sentence that departs from the sentencing guidelines, as expressed in [Ree v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329 (Fla.1990) ], but we modify those options to allow the trial judge the leeway to reduce to writing, immediately after the hearing, the reasons orally stated to the defendant in open court. It is important that these written reasons are entered by the trial judge on the same date as the sentencing. These written reasons should, if at all possible, be filed on the same date; however, a filing on the next business day does not require a new sentencing proceeding.
Id. at 709 (footnote omitted). See also Blair v. State, 598 So. 2d 1068 (Fla.1992); Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063 (Fla.1992); Williams v. State, 607 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
In Blair v. State, 598 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 1992), the trial court announced its reason for departure at sentencing; however, the written order listing the reason was not prepared until after the hearing and was not filed until five days after the hearing. In reversing and remanding for imposition of a guidelines sentence, the court stated:
This was contrary to the requirements of our opinion in Ree v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329 (Fla.1991), modified, State v. Lyles, 576 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1991),....
Id. at 1068. As the court mandated in Blair, we reverse and remand this matter to the trial court for resentencing within the guidelines. See also Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur. . See § 777.03, Fla.Stat. (1991).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Colbert v. State, 646 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…he guideline departure provisions. See § 921.001(5)-(8), Fla.Stat. (1991); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(ll). In this case, the trial judge did not comply; he waited eight days to file his written reasons. This delay is reversible error. See Mock v. State, 625 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (citing State v. Lyles, 576 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1991)); Williams v. State, 607 So. 2d 478, 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (written reasons filed three days after sentencing is reversible error). We vacate the sentence for kidnapping and re…
Authorities Cited
- Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1990)
- REE v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 1990)
- Rhoda Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Lyles, 576 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1991)
- Vasten E. Blair v. State, 598 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 1992)
- Williams v. State, 607 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)