STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DAMON SCANLON, 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.
The State appealed Scanlon's downward departure sentences imposed after probation violations. The court reversed because the trial judge's stated reason—the defendant's youthful age—was not a valid ground for downward departure from sentencing guidelines.
Youthful age is not a valid reason for downward departure. The court reversed and remanded because the trial court lacked valid grounds for the departure. However, because Scanlon was originally given a suspended sentence, the trial court was limited to imposing that suspended portion upon revocation.
[1] A trial court's stated reasons for a downward departure sentence must be legally valid.
[2] Youthful age alone is not a legally valid reason for a downward departure sentence.
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“Scanlon's age is not a valid reason for departure.”
Establishes the core holding that youthful age cannot support downward departure from sentencing guidelines.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScanlon was originally sentenced in 1996 to suspended five-year prison sentences with probation for burglary and grand theft. He violated probation by…
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 Suspended Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, PAUL W., (Senior) Judge.
The State appeals Damon Scanlon’s downward departure sentences. We reverse because the trial court did not provide valid reasons to support the departure.
In August 1996, Scanlon was sentenced to forty-eight months of probation in case number 96-3474 for burglary of a dwelling and third degree grand theft. He subsequently violated probation by committing new offenses of burglary and grand theft charged in case no. 97-9050. Following a plea agreement, in case number 96-3474, the trial court imposed a sentence of suspended five years in prison followed by four years of probation. In case number 97-9050, the court sentenced Scanlon to a suspended sentence of five years in prison followed by two years of probation. The sentences were to run concurrently. The sentences were a downward departure, and the grounds given were that the sentences were the result of a legitimate plea bargain and the need for restitution outweighed the need for a prison sentence.
In March 1998, Scanlon again violated probation and appeared before the trial court for adjudication and sentencing. The sentencing guidelines called for a sentence of 83.6 months’ incarceration with a minimum of 62.7 months and a maximum of 104.5 months. The State asked the court to sentence Scan-lon to the five-year prison sentence which previously had been suspended. Instead, in each case, the trial court sentenced him to five years in prison suspended after three, followed by two years of probation for the burglary offenses and to three years in prison for the grand thefts. All sentences were to run concurrently. The trial court’s only reason for departure, which was stated orally, was Scanlon’s youthful age.
Scanlon’s age is not a valid reason for departure. See State v. Licea, 707 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); State v. Williams, 637 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Accordingly, we reverse. Ordinarily, a trial court’s failure to state valid reasons for departure requires us to remand for resentencing within the guidelines. See Licea; Williams. However, because Scanlon was originally given a suspended sentence, the trial court was limited to imposing the suspended portion of the sentence upon revocation. We, therefore, reverse the sentences and remand for imposition of the five-year sentences which were originally suspended.
Reversed and remanded.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Gilson, 800 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…tate, 732 So. 2d 1065 (Fla.1999). Gilson was eighteen at the time of the offenses. There was no testimony that he was immature for his age or that he suffered any mental abnormality which would affect his ability to comprehend. See State v. Scanlon, 721 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Indeed, unless being eighteen will always justify a downward departure, this record is simply insufficient to sustain the downward departure herein. I would reverse and remand for resen-tencing, urging the court to again conside…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Licea, 707 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- State v. Williams, 637 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)