ISMAEL GARCIA, 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.
The court held that consecutive life sentences imposed without written reasons constitute an unwritten departure from sentencing guidelines, requiring resentencing.
[1] A trial court must provide written reasons for imposing a sentence that departs from sentencing guidelines.
[2] A sentence imposed in departure from sentencing guidelines without written reasons must be reversed and remanded for resentencing.
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of three counts of robbery with a firearm and sentenced to three consecutive life terms. The trial court did not provide writt…
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 Habitual Felony Offender cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant, Ismael Garcia, appeals his convictions for three counts of robbery with a firearm and his resulting sentences to three consecutive life terms. We find no merit in appellant’s arguments concerning his convictions. We do agree, however, that he has been improperly sentenced.
Appellant argues that imposition of three consecutive life sentences for a single criminal episode is a departure from the sentencing guidelines’ recommendation of life. Because the court failed to provide written reasons to depart, appellant argues that the sentence must be reversed and remanded for resentencing within the guidelines.
We agree with appellant that the consecutive life sentences are a departure from the guidelines, Rease v. State, 493 So. 2d 454 (Fla.1986); Lewis v. State, 550 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). On resentencing, because the trial court apparently was not aware that it was imposing a departure sentence, the court shall have the opportunity to again depart from the guidelines if it determines to do so and states valid reasons. Henderson v. State, 577 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 589 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1991).
The court may alternatively consider whether to sentence appellant as a habitual felony offender. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court heard evidence on sentencing appellant as a habitual felony offender or a habitual violent felony offender. The court, however, decided not to sentence appellant as a habitual violent felony offender because appellant’s scoresheet already called for life, and there was thus no apparent need to habitualize appellant to protect society. If the court had realized it was imposing a departure sentence, it may have decided differently. On resentencing, the court may impose a guidelines sentence, it may depart from the guidelines if it provides written reasons, or it may decide upon proper findings to habitualize appellant.
Appellant’s convictions are, therefore, affirmed. His sentences are reversed, and this ease is remanded for resentencing in accord with this opinion.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE v. State, 648 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…onviction, the court sentenced Lee to five years’ imprisonment, to run concurrently with the sentences in the other counts. Imposition of consecutive life sentences for a single criminal episode is a departure from the guidelines. Garcia v. State, 632 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Because the trial court failed to provide written reasons for its departure, Lee must be resen-tenced. Apparently the court was unaware that it was imposing a departure sentence. It may therefore, on resentencing, again depart fr…
-
Crawford v. State, 666 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…m the same incident, when those convictions were taken into account in computing a recommended sentence, is a departure from the guidelines. Rease v. State, 493 So. 2d 454 (Fla.1986); Lee v. State, 648 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Garcia v. State, 632 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Because the trial court failed to provide written reasons for the departure, Crawford must be resentenced. There is no indication in the record that the trial court intended to impose a departure sentence. Therefore, on resentenc…
-
State v. Sanders, 728 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…irm a departure sentence following a reversal for an invalid departure sentence. The first is where the trial court was not aware that it had imposed a departure sentence, and accordingly, did not give any reasons for departure. See Garcia v. State, 632 So. 2d 690, 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The second scenario would be that upon remand the State amends the charges and then the defendant either is tried or enters a plea to the new charges. I conclude that this scenario would create entirely new charges and might…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rease v. State, 493 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1986)
- Henderson v. State, 577 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Lewis v. State, 550 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)