STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RAYMOND EAVES, 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.
Departure sentences imposed without a written statement of reasons are invalid and must be vacated.
The state appealed departure sentences imposed under sentencing guidelines without the required written statement of reasons. The trial court imposed …
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
ALLEN, Judge.
The state appeals departure sentences which were imposed under the Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.702 sentencing guidelines without a written statement delineating the reasons for departure as required by rule 3.702(d)(18) and section 921.0016(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1993). Although the court reviewed the guidelines scoresheet and initially indicated that a recommended guidelines sentence would be imposed, the court thereafter ascertained that the appellee was being sentenced in connection with a third degree felony and imposed the lesser maximum sentences authorized therefor under section 775.082(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1993). However, section 921.001(5), Florida Statutes (1993) provides that:
If a recommended sentence exceeds the maximum sentence otherwise authorized by s. 775.082, the sentence under the guidelines must be imposed, absent a departure.
See also § 921.0014(1), Fla.Stat. (1993). Because the court improperly imposed departure sentences without the required written statement, the sentences are vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing. See Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990). In accordance with Pope and section 921.001(5), on remand the court must impose sentences within the presumptive range under the guidelines.
MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.