HUBERT BRITT, 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.
Defendant Britt appealed his sentence for four counts of planting a hoax bomb and related offenses, arguing that the trial court imposed a departure sentence without providing written reasons as required by Florida law. The court affirmed the sentence, holding that while the trial court failed to timely file written reasons, the defendant's early filing of the notice of appeal divested the court of jurisdiction, and the court could provide written findings post-appeal.
The court affirmed the sentence, finding that although the trial court failed to timely file written reasons for departure, the defendant's early filing of the notice of appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction, preventing compliance with the rule's fifteen-day deadline. The court held that upon issuance of the mandate, the trial court would have five days to provide the required written reasons for departure.
[1] A trial court must file a written statement delineating the reasons for departure within fifteen days of sentencing.
[2] The filing of a notice of appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction over the matter.
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“Under rule 3.702(d)(18)(A) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, trial court is required to file a written statement delineating the reasons for departure within fifteen days of the sentencing.”
Establishes the procedural requirement that the trial court must provide written reasons for departure sentences within a specific timeframe.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBritt entered a no contest plea to four counts of planting a hoax bomb, six counts of false report about planting a bomb, one count of false report of…
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 Divestiture Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
ANTOON, Judge.
The defendant entered a no contest plea to four counts of planting a hoax bomb,1 six counts of false report about planting a bomb,2 one count of false report of bombing or arson against state-owned property,3 and one count of possession or discharging a destructive device.4 The defendant appeals his sentence, arguing that the trial court improperly imposed a departure sentence without providing written reasons. We affirm.
The sentencing hearing took place on March 15,1996. At that time, the trial court orally announced its reasons for imposing a departure sentence: (1) the charged offenses created a substantial risk of great bodily harm to others; and (2) “the defendant has in the past been involved in other conduct similar to that involved in the current case.” However, at the time the notice of appeal was filed, these statutorily authorized reasons for departure had not been set forth in a written order. Under rule 3.702(d)(18)(A) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, trial court is required to file a written statement delineating the reasons for departure within fifteen days of the sentencing. In the instant case, the defendant filed a notice of appeal on March 25, 1996, ten days after imposition of sentence but five days before the fifteen day time period elapsed. The filing of this appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction over this matter and thereby deprived the trial court of the opportunity to enter written findings within the time period provided by the rule. See Domberg v. State, 661 So. 2d 285 (Fla.1995). Accordingly, we must affirm. Upon issuance of the mandate in this ease, the trial court will have five days within which to comply with rule 3.702(d)(18)(A) by providing written reasons for departure.
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON, C.J., concurs.
GRIFFIN, J., concurs in result.
. § 790.165(2), Fla. Stat. (1995).
. § 790.163, Fla. Stat. (1995).
. § 790.164, Fla. Stat. (1995).
. § 790.161, Fla. Stat. (1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. M.R.T., 848 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ari is appropriate. See, State v. Swett, 772 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); State v. Rhodes, 554 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). The filing of M.R.T.’s notice of appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction to terminate probation. Britt v. State, 687 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Dailey v. State, 575 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). We grant the writ, quash the order terminating probation, and remand with instructions that the trial court reinstate the original sentence. PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED…
-
Acevedo v. State, 692 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…, these arguments are irrelevant because this appeal was filed before the deadline for the filing of the written reasons for departure. Although we deny the motion to dismiss, we have elected to summarily affirm.1 As we indicated in Britt v. State, 687 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), a defendant who appeals the failure to file written reasons for departure before the trial court’s deadline for filing written reasons for departure cannot expect to prevail on a claim of error that no written reasons were timel…
-
State v. Cael Mills, 701 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…GRIFFIN, Chief Judge. Affirmed. Pease v. State, 22 Fla. L. Weekly S624, — So. 2d -, 1997 WL 618705 (Fla. Oct. 9, 1997); Britt v. State, 687 So. 2d 930, 931 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). On remand, the court has eight days within which to file the missing written reasons for downward departure. AFFIRMED. HARRIS and ANTOON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Domberg v. State, 661 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1995)