CHRISTOPHER MANNINO, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Christopher Mannino was convicted of two third-degree felonies (resisting officers with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer). The court affirms the convictions but reverses the sentence because the trial court imposed concurrent five-year sentences without written justification for departing downward from the 12-17 year guideline recommendation.
The court affirms the convictions but reverses the sentence and remands for resentencing because the trial court imposed a downward departure without providing written reasons justifying the departure, violating the requirements established in Branam v. State.
[1] A trial court must impose concurrent or consecutive sentences to approximate the guidelines score-sheet recommendation when statutory minimums or maximums preclude senten…
[2] A sentence imposed without written reasons justifying a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines is reversible error.
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“a trial court must impose either concurrent or consecutive sentences, as the case may be, in order to come as close as possible to the guidelines score-sheet recommendation unless the trial court justifies the departure by valid written reasons”
Statement of the Branam rule requiring trial courts to justify downward departures from sentencing guidelines with written reasons
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMannino was convicted of resisting officers with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer, both third-degree felonies carrying a maximum pena…
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 Statutory Maximum Penalty cases and more on FLexlaw
PARIENTE, Judge.
. We affirm defendant’s convictions in all respects raised in his appeal. On cross-appeal, we reverse the sentence imposed because the trial court entered a downward departure sentence without written reasons justifying the departure.
Defendant was convicted of resisting officers with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer, both third-degree felonies, each offense carrying a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. Under the sentencing guidelines, the recommended range was 12-17 years. The trial court sentenced defendant to the statutory maximum term of five years for each offense, to run concurrently.
The state maintains that the trial court erred in imposing concurrent sentences based on Branam v. State, 554 So. 2d 512 (Fla.1990). In Branam, the supreme court held that in the case of multiple convictions where statutory minimums or máximums preclude sentencing within the guidelines for an individual offense, a “trial court must impose either concurrent or consecutive sentences, as the case may be, in order to come as close as possible to the guidelines score-sheet recommendation” unless the trial court justifies the departure by valid written reasons. Id. at 513-14.
In this case, the sentencing order indicates that sentencing was not in conformity with Branam because of the imposition of concurrent sentences of five years where the guidelines recommendation was 12-17 yfears. However, the state has failed to provide us with a transcript of the sentencing hearing from which we may discern the reasons for the sentence imposed. Therefore, we do not know whether the trial court exercised its discretion to impose a downward departure sentence or instead intended to impose the statutory maximum for each crime and did not realize it was imposing a departure sentence. See State v. Betancourt, 552 So. 2d 1107 (Fla.1989); Williams v. State, 591 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Further, because the state did not provide us with an adequate record, we do not know whether the trial court recited valid reasons for departure during sentencing such that the act of reducing the reasons to writing was merely ministerial. See Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063, 1067 (Fla.1992).
Accordingly, we vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR RESEN-TENCING.
GUNTHER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rhoda Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Betancourt, 552 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 1989)
- Branam v. State, 554 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1990)
- Williams v. State, 591 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)