ARTHUR L. BROWN, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Supreme Court held that a trial court must determine in writing whether valid reasons exist for a downward departure from a guideline sentence upon revocation, and remanded for the trial court to either impose a downward departure with stated reasons or a guideline sentence.
A trial court must determine and state in writing, based on all circumstances through the revocation sentencing date, whether valid reasons exist for a downward departure from a guideline sentence for a revocation.
[1] A trial court must determine and state in writing, based upon all circumstances through the revocation sentencing date, whether valid reasons exist for a downward departu…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArthur L. Brown was subject to revocation sentencing, and the district court had instructed the trial court to impose a guidelines 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 Written Findings Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
WELLS, Justice.
We have for review State v. Brown, 675 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), which certified conflict with Schiffer v. State, 617 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), State v. Hogan, 611 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), and State v. Glover, 634 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. In Franquiz v. State, 682 So. 2d 536 (Fla.1996), we resolved this conflict, holding that “a trial court must determine and state in writing, based upon all the circumstances through the date of the revocation sentencing, whether valid reasons exist for a downward departure from a guideline sentence for a revocation.” Id. at 538. Accordingly, we approve in part the decision of the district court to the extent that it is consistent with our opinion. However, we quash in part the decision to the extent it instructs the trial court to impose a guidelines sentence. Rather, in accord with Franquiz, we direct that this case be remanded to the trial court with the trial court having the option of imposing either a downward departure revocation sentence with proper reasons for the departure or, in the absence of proper reasons, a guideline sentence. See id.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Noble, 990 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…da Statutes (2006). We agree and reverse and remand to permit the defendant to withdraw his plea, or for resentencing either in accordance with the sentencing guidelines (or, if below the guidelines, with the requisite findings). See Brown v. State, 687 So. 2d 1300 (Fla.1997). At the onset of the violation hearing, the State offered the defendant a below-guidelines plea and sentence of ten years as a habitual offender. When the trial court indicated it was inclined to offer the defendant an even lower sentenc…
Authorities Cited
- Franquiz v. State, 682 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1996)
- Schiffer v. State, 617 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- State v. Robby Hogan, 611 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- State v. Glover, 634 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- State v. Brown, 675 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)