STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
TYRONE SEBASTIAN TILLMAN, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 State appealed Tillman's sentences as a habitual felony offender, challenging seven sentences imposed as downward departures from sentencing guidelines without written reasons. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing, holding that a trial judge must enter written reasons supporting any downward departure from the guidelines when sentencing a habitual offender.
The court reversed Tillman's sentences, holding that to properly sentence a habitual felony offender to probation or community control, the trial judge must first decide under section 775.084(4)(c) that a habitual felony offender sentence was not necessary, then apply guidelines sentencing, and if recommending a downward departure, must enter written findings of proper reasons for the departure.
[1] A trial court must provide written reasons for a downward departure from sentencing guidelines when sentencing a defendant as a habitual felony offender to probation or c…
[2] Sentencing a defendant as a habitual felony offender to probation or community control requires a prior determination that such a sentence is not necessary, followed by a…
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“In order to properly sentence a defendant found to be an habitual felony offender to probation or community control, the trial judge would first have to make a decision under subsection 775.084(4)(c) that a sentence as an habitual felony offender was not necessary. Having made that decision, a sentence pursuant to sentencing guidelines would then be required.”
Establishes the required procedural framework for sentencing habitual offenders to probation or community control
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTillman was designated a habitual felony offender in seven cases and received a total of two years of community control followed by eight years of dru…
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 Written Reasons For Sentencing Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state challenges Tillman’s sentences as a habitual felony offender in seven cases. Two of the cases involved original sentences; the remaining eases involved sentences imposed upon revocation of probation. The state contends the sentences are illegal because they constitute a downward departure from the guidelines and they are not supported by written reasons. We agree and reverse.
This court has set forth the following procedure for sentencing a defendant as a habitual offender to probation or community control:
In order to properly sentence a defendant found to be an habitual felony offender to probation or community control, the trial judge would first have to make a decision under subsection 775.084(4)(c) that a sentence as an habitual felony offender was not necessary. Having made that decision, a sentence pursuant to sentencing guidelines would then be required. If the guidelines recommended sentence called for a sentence other than probation or community control, in order to impose such a sentence, the trial judge would be required to enter an order finding proper reasons for a downward departure. Only then could the state appeal such a sentence based upon an improper departure.
King v. State, 597 So. 2d 309, 317 (Fla. 2d DCA) (en banc), review denied, 602 So. 2d 942 (Fla.1992) (emphasis in original).1
Tillman was designated a habitual offender in the seven cases, and he was placed on a total of two years of community control followed by eight years of drug offender probation. However, Tillman’s scoresheet indicated a permitted sentencing range of twelve to twenty-seven years, and the trial court did not supply written reasons in support of its departure from this range.
Accordingly, we must reverse Tillman’s sentences in case nos. 87-2697, 87-2800, 87-3162, 87-3163, 89-4970, 89-4971, 92-12208, and 92-12259 and remand all but case no. 87-2697 for resentencing within the guidelines. Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990). Tillman shall not be resentenced in ease no. 87-2697 because, as he argues on cross-appeal, he has served the statutory maximum in that case.
We do not reach Tillman’s other issue on cross-appeal as it has been rendered moot by our disposition of the direct appeal.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
FRANK, C.J., and PARKER and LAZZARA, JJ., concur. . The supreme court adopted the rationale of King in McKnight v. State, 616 So. 2d 31 (Fla.1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Cosentino, 679 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…en reasons for the departure. State v. Rinkins, 646 So. 2d 727 (Fla.1994)(trial court choosing to impose a more lenient sentence than required by habitual offender statute must state appropriate reasons for the departure). See also State v. Tillman, 636 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). When, as in this case, the trial court fails to provide written reasons for departure, the case must be remanded for resentencing within the guidelines. State v. Tavolaccio, 657 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Therefore, we rev…
Authorities Cited
- Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1990)
- King v. State, 597 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- McKNIGHT v. State, 616 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 1993)
- THE Florida BAR v. Neckman, 616 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 1993)