DUSTIN WATSON, 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.
Dustin Watson appealed his youthful offender sentence for burglary and grand theft, arguing that the combination of his prison term and probation period exceeded the sentencing guidelines. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded because the trial court imposed an upward departure from the guidelines without written reasons and did not appear to realize it was deviating from the guidelines.
The court held that Watson's youthful offender sentence constituted an improper upward departure sentence because it exceeded the recommended guidelines sentence and no written reasons were given. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing, directing the trial court to either sentence Watson within the guidelines or provide valid reasons for any departure.
[1] A youthful offender sentence that exceeds the recommended guidelines sentence constitutes an improper upward departure sentence when no written reasons are provided.
[2] Where a trial court imposes a departure sentence without realizing it, the court may, upon remand, resentence within the guidelines or provide valid reasons for departure…
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“The combination of Appellant's incarceration and probation period exceeded the recommended guidelines sentence. Thus, since no written reasons were given, Appellant's youthful offender sentence constitutes an improper upward departure sentence.”
Establishes that the court found an improper upward departure when prison and probation combined exceeded guidelines without written justification.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWatson pleaded no contest to burglary of a dwelling and grand theft of a firearm. The trial court sentenced him as a youthful offender to 28.2 months …
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 Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals from the youthful offender sentence entered against him after pleading no contest to burglary and grand theft. Since his youthful offender sentence exceeded the recommended guidelines sentence, we reverse and remand for resentencing.
Appellant entered a no contest plea to burglary of a dwelling (count I) and grand theft of a firearm (count II). The trial court sentenced Appellant as a youthful offender to 28.2 months in prison for each count, followed by three years’ probation on count I and two years’ probation on count II. The prison sentences and probationary periods were to run concurrently. The sentencing guidelines had reflected a sentencing range from a minimum of 21.1 months to a maximum of 35.2 months, with a recommended sentence of 28.2 months.
The combination of Appellant’s incarceration and probation period exceeded the rec ommended guidelines sentence. Thus, since no written reasons were given, Appellant’s youthful offender sentence constitutes an improper upward departure sentence. Kepner v. State, 577 So. 2d 576, 578 (Fla.1991); State v. Betancourt, 552 So. 2d 1107, 1108 (Fla.1989); Reed v. State, 681 So. 2d 913, 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
However, where the trial court does not realize it was imposing a departure sentence, the trial court, upon remand, may sentence a defendant within the guidelines or set forth valid reasons for departure. Betancourt, 552 So. 2d at 1108; Reed, 681 So. 2d at 913-14. In the instant ease, there is no indication in the record that the trial judge considered Appellant’s sentence to be a departure from the sentencing guidelines. We therefore reverse Appellant’s youthful offender sentence and remand to the trial court so that it may resentence Appellant within the sentencing guidelines or provide a valid reason for departure.
On remand, we also direct the trial court to correct the following errors. Appellant’s probation order should be changed to reflect his status as a youthful offender. In addition, since the trial court orally pronounced that Appellant pay $600 in special public defender’s fees at sentencing, which was reflected in a final judgment order dated October 3, 1995, the trial court must vacate the order dated July 27, 1995, imposing $1,200 in special public defender’s fees. See id., 681 So. 2d at 914 (finding that the written judgment must be corrected to conform with the oral pronouncement). Finally, we reverse the prospective award of appellate costs as it was improper for the trial court to make such an anticipatory and unauthorized award. In the Interest of L.B., 651 So. 2d 1274, 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Anderson v. State, 632 So. 2d 132, 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GUNTHER, C.J., and FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Durant v. State, 763 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…urt, 552 So. 2d 1107, 1108 (Fla.1989). In Betanc-ourt, the court held that a combination of incarceration and community control that exceeds the guideline sentencing range constitutes a departure sentence. 552 So. 2d at 1108, accord Watson v. State, 690 So. 2d 730, 730-31 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Davis v. State, 677 So. 2d 1366, 1367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). In this case, appellant’s guidelines score-sheet showed a recommended minimum sentence of 29.7 imprisonment and a maximum sentence of 49.5 months. Since the spl…
-
Doyle v. State, 788 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…tional ten days. We disagree. In the absence of written reasons to support the upward departure, even youthful offender sentences cannot exceed the sentencing guidelines. See, e.g., Easton v. State, 687 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Watson v. State, 690 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Moreover, no offender should be subject to confinement for even one day more than required under a legal sentence. We, therefore, remand this case for resentenc-ing in accordance with Smith, 761 So. 2d 419. Remanded for recons…
-
Miller v. State, 744 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…he maximum youthful offender sentence of six years, the court must sentence within the guidelines or give valid written reasons for the departure whether upward or downward. See State v. Betancourt, 552 So. 2d 1107, 1108 (Fla.1989); Watson v. State, 690 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). In the instant case, the recommended guidelines sentence was less than the youthful offender sentence imposed; however, the trial court erroneously thought that the sentencing guidelines did not apply if Appellant was sentenced…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Betancourt, 552 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 1989)
- Kepner v. State, 577 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1991)
- Anderson v. State, 632 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- In the Interest of L.B., 651 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Jones v. State, 681 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)