MARTY BRENDELL DARRISAW, 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.
Marty Brendell Darrisaw appealed a resentencing imposed after his successful challenge to a departure sentence. The trial court imposed consecutive mandatory minimum sentences that exceeded the guidelines range by six months. The court reversed and remanded, holding that when mandatory minimums preclude sentencing within guidelines, the trial court must impose concurrent rather than consecutive mandatory minimums to come as close as possible to the guidelines range.
No. When statutory mandatory minimum or maximum sentences preclude sentencing within the guidelines recommendation, the trial court must impose either concurrent or consecutive sentences to come as close as possible to the guidelines range. Therefore, the court erred in imposing consecutive mandatory minimums that exceeded the guidelines, and concurrent mandatory minimums must be imposed instead.
[1] When statutory minimum mandatory sentences preclude sentencing within the permitted guidelines, a trial court must impose either concurrent or consecutive sentences to co…
[2] A sentencing error that is apparent on the face of the record does not require a contemporaneous objection for appellate review.
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“Thus, in those instances where the statutory mínimums or máximums preclude sentencing within the guidelines recommendation, the trial judge must impose either concurrent or consecutive sentences ... in order to come as dose as possible to the guidelines scoresheet recommendation.”
Establishes the foundational principle from Branam that when statutory constraints prevent guidelines sentencing, courts must choose concurrent or consecutive sentences to approximate guidelines as closely as possible.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDarrisaw was convicted of armed robbery with a firearm, grand theft auto, and aggravated assault. His recommended guidelines sentence was 3½ to 4½ yea…
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 Sentencing Error Preservation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After appellant’s successful appeal to this court and the supreme court challenging his departure sentence, Darrisaw v. State, 642 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), approved, 660 So. 2d 269 (Fla.l995), the case was remanded to the trial court with directions to sentence the appellant within the guidelines. Appellant appeals from the sentence imposed on remand, which exceeded the guidelines by six months. We reverse.
The appellant was convicted of one count of armed robbery with a firearm, one count of grand theft auto, and one count of aggravated assault. His recommended guidelines sentence was 3½ to 4½ years, and the permitted range was 2⅜ to 5⅞ years. In sentencing on remand, the court imposed a 5½ year sentence on count one with a three year mandatory minimum sentence for the use of a firearm, a five year sentence on count two, and a five year sentence on count three, including a three year mandatory minimum for use of a firearm. The court made the mandatory minimum portion of the sentences on counts one and three run consecutively, because it found that the crimes occurred at separate times and places. As a consequence of the imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences, the appellant was sentenced to prison for six years, six months longer than the permitted guidelines range.1
In Branam v. State, 554 So. 2d 512 (Fla.1990), the supreme court reaffirmed the principle that sentencing guidelines strove for uniformity in sentencing. “Thus, in those instances where the statutory mínimums or máximums preclude sentencing within the guidelines recommendation, the trial judge must impose either concurrent or consecutive sentences ... in order to come as dose as possible to the guidelines scoresheet recommendation.” Id. at 513-14 (emphasis supplied). Branam was applied in Barry v. State, 654 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 660 So. 2d 715 (Fla.1995). Barry is directly on point. In Barry, the defendant was also before the court on resentencing within the guidelines after a successful appeal of a departure sentence. Just as in the instant case, the trial court sentenced Barry to consecutive fifteen year mandatory minimum prison terms, which exceeded the guidelines. The second district reversed, holding that the court erred in imposing consecutive sentences:
Where statutory minimum mandatory sentences preclude sentencing within the permitted guidelines, the trial court, in order to come as close to the permitted guidelines range as possible, must impose either concurrent or consecutive minimum mandatory sentences. Zamora v. State, 584 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). See also Branam v. State, 554 So. 2d 512 (Fla.1990).
Id. at 1230.
The direction on remand was to sentence the appellant within the guidelines. The application of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences resulted in a total sentence which exceeded the guidelines. We, therefore, remand to the trial court for the imposition of concurrent minimum mandatory sentences.
Reversed and remanded.
WARNER, PARIENTE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur. . The state claims that the error was not preserved for review. However, a sentencing error which is apparent on the face of the record does not require a contemporaneous objection. Taylorv. State, 601 So. 2d 540 (Fla.1992).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fannin v. State, 751 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…etary, 647 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Zamora v. State, 584 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Hemandez-Reinoso v. State, 583 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Boom v. State, 574 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The Fourth District, in Darrisaw v. State, 682 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), agreed with our interpretation of Branam. Based on these decisions, we conclude that the trial court in this case should have granted Fannin’s motion for postconviction relief as to the sentencing issue, despite our affirmance o…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Branam v. State, 554 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1990)
- State v. Darrisaw, 660 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1995)
- Taylor v. State, 601 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1992)
- Darrisaw v. State, 642 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Zamora v. State, 584 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Barry v. State, 654 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)