JIMMY LEE LLOYD, 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 a departure sentence imposed without contemporaneous written reasons or agreement is invalid. The court also found no reversible error in excluding a juror for cause.
Lloyd received a departure sentence in excess of permitted guidelines for a probation violation. The trial court did not provide contemporaneous 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 Contemporaneous Written Reasons cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, Judge.
After violating his probation, Lloyd was sentenced at one sentencing hearing on both the original offense (lower court case number 91-11437) and on the new substantive offenses which constituted the violation (lower court case number 92-7140). In case number 91-11437, Lloyd received a departure sentence in excess of the one-cell bump-up permitted by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(ll). The trial court could have departed from the guidelines for reasons that existed as of the original sentencing hearing; 1 however, the departure sentence imposed here was invalid because it was not supported by contemporaneous written reasons and the record does not indicate that Lloyd agreed to be sentenced outside the guidelines as part of his plea. Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990); Rice v. State, 622 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). We thus vacate Lloyd’s sentence in case number 91-11437 and remand for resentencing within the guidelines.
We ñnd no merit in Lloyd’s second claim that the lower court committed reversible error in excluding a juror for cause in case no. 92-7140.
JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . Snead v. State, 616 So. 2d 964 (Fla.1993); Williams v. State, 581 So. 2d 144 (Fla.1991).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Conn v. State, 684 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…]hen all of the reasons stated by the trial court in support of departure are found invalid, resentencing following remand must be within the presumptive guidelines sentence.”); Williams v. State, 492 So. 2d 1308 (Fla.1986); see also Lloyd v. State, 633 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Browning v. State, 625 So. 2d 960, 961 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (remanding for resen-tencing within the presumptive guideline sentence where all written reasons are invalid and noting that, upon resentencing, trial court may not enun…
-
Baker v. State, 723 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…and for resentencing within the guidelines. REVERSED and REMANDED. DAUKSCH and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . § 800.04(3), Fla. Stat. (1995). . The presumptive sentence under the guidelines for this offense was 96.5 months or 8 years. . Lloyd v. State, 633 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). . § 810.02(1) and (2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). . § 794.011 (3), Fla. Stat. (1995).…
Authorities Cited
- Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1990)
- Williams v. State, 581 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1991)
- Snead v. State, 616 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 1993)
- Rice v. State, 622 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)