KEITH JOHN SMITH, A/K/A EARYL JOHN SMITH, 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.
Keith John Smith appealed a trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence for second-degree murder. The court reversed, holding that when a trial court fails to provide written reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines at original sentencing, it cannot depart upon remand.
A trial court may not depart from sentencing guidelines upon remand when it failed to provide written reasons for departure at the original sentencing. The Supreme Court precedent in Brown v. State, Pope v. State, and Shull v. Dugger, applied retrospectively, prohibits such departure.
[1] A trial court cannot depart from sentencing guidelines and provide reasons for departure upon resentencing when it failed to do so at the original sentencing.
[2] A prior appellate mandate reversing a sentence for failure to provide a scoresheet and written reasons for departure does not permit a departure upon resentencing.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“where the trial court at the original sentencing fails to provide written reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines, a remand from the district court prohibits a departure when the defendant is resentenced”
Establishes the core legal principle governing the case, citing controlling Supreme Court precedent.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith was originally sentenced in 1986 to ninety-nine years for second-degree murder, departing from the twelve to seventeen-year guideline range with…
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 Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Acting Chief Judge.
Keith John Smith appeals a trial court order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. We reverse.
Smith was originally sentenced in 1986 for second-degree murder. The trial court departed from the sentencing guidelines of twelve to seventeen years and imposed a ninety-nine-year sentence. On appeal, this court reversed the sentence for the trial court’s failure to provide a sentencing guidelines scoresheet and written reasons for the departure. Smith v. State, 497 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA1986). Upon remand, the trial court in 1987 again departed from the sentencing guidelines, imposed a ninety-nine-year sentence, and attached an order of aggravating circumstances.
Smith alleged in his motion to correct an illegal sentence that the trial court could not depart from the sentencing guidelines and list reasons for departure when the trial court failed to do so at the original sentencing. In denying Smith’s motion, the trial court’s order stated that this court’s mandate placed no prohibition as to the sentence to be imposed upon remand and found the sentence upon remand was not illegal. We conclude that finding was error. The supreme court has made it clear that where the trial court at the original sentencing fails to provide written reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines, a remand from the district court prohibits a departure when the defendant is resen-tenced. Brown v. State, 593 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1992); Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1990); Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1987).
The state argues that the holdings in these cases should be applied prospectively only and that Smith’s departure sentence was a legal sentence because the court resen-tenced Smith before these cases had been decided. We disagree. In Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063 (Fla.1992), the supreme court concluded that Pope should be applied retrospectively to sentences imposed prior to April 26, 1990. This appellant, therefore, is entitled to the relief he seeks.
We reverse the trial court’s order denying the motion to correct illegal sentence and remand this ease for a sentence within the sentencing guidelines.
ALTENBERND and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1990)
- Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1987)
- Rhoda Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1992)
- McPHAUL v. State, 497 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Smith v. State, 497 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Brown v. State, 593 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1992)