JOEY BLACK, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a sentence combining incarceration, community control, and probation imposed after revocation of community control, holding that a negotiated plea agreement constitutes valid written reason for departing from sentencing guidelines and that departure sentences without written reasons are not illegal if they do not exceed statutory maximums.
A negotiated plea agreement is a valid reason for departing from sentencing guidelines, and a departure sentence without written reasons is not illegal unless it exceeds the maximum allowed by law.
[1] A negotiated plea agreement constitutes valid written reason for departing from sentencing guidelines under Florida law.
[2] A departure sentence that does not exceed the maximum allowed by law is not illegal merely because written reasons for the departure were not provided.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Only if the sentence exceeds the maximum allowed by law would the sentence be illegal.”
Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995), establishing the standard for illegal sentences.
Black's community control was revoked and he was sentenced to incarceration followed by community control and probation. Black challenged the sentence…
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 Guidelines Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On revocation of community control, the appellant was sentenced to both incarceration and community control, followed by probation. The appellant contends that the trial court erred because the sentence was illegal, as a departure from the guidelines without written reasons. We affirm the appellant’s sentence and hold, in accordance with Smith v. State, 529 So. 2d 1106, 1107 (Fla.1988), that a negotiated plea agreement is a valid reason upon which to base a departure from a guidelines sentence. In this case the trial court checked “plea” on the scoresheet, and the plea agreement is part of the record. Therefore, the record shows a valid reason for departing. See Smith v. State, 553 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
Moreover, the supreme court recently decided in Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995), that a departure sentence without written reasons does not constitute an illegal sentence. “Only if the sentence exceeds the maximum allowed by law would the sentence be illegal.” Id. at 1196. The Davis court specifically receded from any contrary statements in State v. Whitfield, 487 So. 2d 1045 (Fla.1986). Our decisions in Cavaretta v. State, 656 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), and Hause v. State, 643 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), holding to the contrary, were published prior to Davis, which effectively overrules them on this issue.
Affirmed.
WARNER, PARIENTE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robinson v. State, 680 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…[*564] PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Black v. State, 665 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). MINER and LAWRENCE, JJ., and SHIVERS, Senior Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995)
- State v. Whitfield, 487 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1986)
- Benny Ray Smith v. State, 529 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 1988)
- Smith v. State, 553 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Hause v. State, 643 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Cavaretta v. State, 656 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)