MICHAEL REID, 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.
Michael Reid appealed his sentencing on an armed burglary conviction, challenging an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the departure sentence, rejecting arguments that the trial court failed to provide contemporaneous written reasons and improperly delegated the sentencing function to the prosecutor.
The court held that contemporaneous written reasons for departure are satisfied when reasons are reduced to writing without substantive change and filed on the same day as oral pronouncement. The court also held that a trial judge may direct a prosecutor to prepare a written order as a clerical task provided the judge has orally articulated the specific reasons for departure and the written order incorporates those judicially-determined reasons.
[1] Written reasons for a departure sentence are considered contemporaneous when filed on the same day as the oral pronouncement, even if filed on the next business day, prov…
[2] A trial court may direct a prosecutor to prepare a written sentencing order reflecting the court's orally articulated reasons for departure, as this constitutes a clerica…
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“where reasons for departure sentence are executed in a written order on the same date as orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing, but are filed on the next business day, the trial court has satisfied "contemporaneous written reasons" requirement”
Establishes the standard for contemporaneous written reasons—same-day filing without substantive change is sufficient
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReid was resentenced on October 31, 1995, following a prior appeal that vacated his 1994 conviction on a different charge and remanded for resentencin…
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
MICKLE, Judge.
Michael Reid appeals a sentencing order imposing an upward departure from the guidelines. We affirm. In Reid v. State, 656 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. den., 663 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1995), we 1) vacated the appellant’s 1994 conviction for a crime not at issue in the present appeal and remanded for a new trial, and 2) remanded for resentencing on the armed burglary offense at issue here. The resentencing hearing was held on October 31, 1995.
The sentencing guidelines require written reasons for a departure. Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(ll). The appellant’s first claim of error is that the trial court failed to provide contemporaneous written reasons to justify the departure sentence.
We disagree. State v. Lyles, 576 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1991) (where reasons for departure sentence are executed in a written order on the same date as orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing, but are filed on the next business day, the trial court has satisfied “contemporaneous written reasons” requirement), receded from on other grounds, Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063,1066 (Fla.1992); Novicki v. State, 604 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (on pet. for reh’g) (written departure order filed subsequent to oral pronouncement, but on same day, was “substantially the same” as oral ruling and satisfied contemporaneous rendition requirement).
At the resentencing hearing, the able trial judge expressed oral findings of fact and articulated specific reasons for the departure. Those reasons were reduced to writing, without substantive change, and were filed on the same day as the hearing. The Florida Supreme Court has interpreted the law as requiring nothing more than was done below. In fact, the supreme court stated in Lyles that a trial court’s mere failure to file a written departure order simultaneously with its oral pronouncement “plac[es] form over substance.” Id. at 708-09. Contemporaneous filing, i.e., on the same day, “without substantive change,” is sufficient to satisfy the law. Id.
The second alleged error is that the trial court improperly delegated an exclusive judicial function by instructing the prosecutor to prepare a written sentencing order. The formulation of reasons for a departure sentence is “a function committed exclusively to the judiciary.” Johnson v. State, 483 So. 2d 839, 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (revised opinion); Wilson v. State, 485 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). “[A] trial judge cannot implicitly adopt the State’s grounds for a departure sentence.” Domberg v. State, 661 So. 2d 285, 287 (Fla.1995).
Given the instant facts, however, we conclude that the trial court fulfilled its duties and did not err. The court orally pronounced its specific reasons for departure and simply directed the prosecutor to perform the clerical task of preparing a written order consonant with the court’s decision. In fact, the written order incorporated the court’s announced reasons for departure. The law does not preclude such a delegation. Martin v. State, 599 So. 2d 719, 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (approving that portion of a departure order, prepared by the prosecutor, that comported with the reasons orally articulated by the sentencing court); Johnson, 483 So. 2d at 840.
We find no merit in the appellant’s suggestion that the trial court, in its findings and reasoning, merely parroted the findings made by a different trial judge in the original 1994 sentencing proceeding. On the contrary, the transcript of the resentencing hearing demonstrates that counsel for both sides addressed the sentencing options and that the judge fully considered the appellant’s criminal record as it related to the reasons for departure. We find no error in the trial court’s reliance on valid reasons for departure previously given at the original hearing.
AFFIRMED.
SHIVERS and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Evans v. State, 703 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…a. 1st DCA 1995)(reversing where “the trial court committed fundamental error by giving a jury instruction that permitted ... conviction of a] ... nonexistent crime”), review denied, 663 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1995), appealed after remand on other grounds, 673 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), appeal dismissed, 683 So. 2d 484 (Fla.1996). As we recently held in Mosely v. State, 682 So. 2d 605, 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996): When jurors are given an instruction that would permit them to find the defendant guilty of a crime t…
-
City OF Oldsmar & Pamela Jo Bondi v. Trinh, 210 So. 3d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…1 So. 2d 369, 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (rejecting the defendant’s argument “that the trial court could not delegate to the prosecutor the task of writing the sentencing order pursuant to findings specifically made by the trial court.”); Reid v. State, 673 So. 2d 972, 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (holding that a trial court fulfilled its duties to pronounce sentence and to spécify reasons for departure and did not improperly delegate its authority by directing “the prosecutor to perform the clerical task of preparing…
-
State v. West, 718 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…The court noted, however, that one could conclude that a mitigating factor found in section 921.0016(4)(j), unsophisticated manner and isolated incident, applied in this case. . In limited circumstances, oral reasons may suffice. See Reid v. State, 673 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Wilcox v. State, 664 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.702(d)(18). . Domberg v. State, 661 So. 2d 285, 286-287 (Fla. 1995).…
Authorities Cited
- Rhoda Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Lyles, 576 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1991)
- Domberg v. State, 661 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1995)
- Wilson v. State, 485 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Reid v. State, 656 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Johnson v. State, 483 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Novicki v. State, 604 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Martin v. State, 599 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)