STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
GUY LEE DOUGLAS, 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 trial court must provide written reasons for any downward departure from the sentencing guidelines, even when sentencing under the habitual felony offender statute.
The State appealed a sentence imposed on Guy Douglas, which was a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines range. The trial court appeared to…
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 Downward Departure From Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Chief Judge.
The State appeals from Guy Douglas’s sentence entered without written reasons for downward departure. We reverse and remand for resentencing.
The trial court found that Douglas qualified as a habitual felony offender pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1997), but sentenced him to a year and a day in prison, to be followed by three years’ probation. This was a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines range of 32.7 to 54.5 months’ imprisonment. It appears that the trial court was under the impression that if it sentenced Douglas to any prison time under the habitual offender statute, then the sentencing guidelines did not apply. The State correctly contends that the trial court was required to provide written reasons for departure.
“If a trial judge chooses to impose a sentence more lenient than that required by section 775.084, the judge must still adhere to the sentencing guidelines and must state appropriate reasons for any downward departure from the guidelines.” State v. Rinkins, 646 So. 2d 727, 729 (Fla.1994). Here, because the trial court did not realize that it was imposing a departure sentence, the trial court is entitled to state departure reasons on remand. See State v. Betancourt, 552 So. 2d 1107 (Fla.1989); State v. Henriquez, 717 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). We note that Douglas contends that the State has not preserved this issue for review. At the sentencing hearing, however, the State objected, cited Rinkins, and argued that the trial court was required to comply with the guidelines. Therefore, we hold that the State preserved the issue for review, and we reverse Douglas’s sentence and remand for resentencing, at which time the trial court may consider reasons for departure.
Reversed and remanded.
THREADGILL and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Perez, 802 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…. 2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (holding that a departure from sentencing guidelines must be based on a valid legal reason); Hoffman v. State, 700 So. 2d 765, 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); State v. McLeod, 652 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); State v. Douglas, 744 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Accordingly, we vacate the sentence. On remand, the defendant must be afforded the opportunity to withdraw his plea. See State v. Meyers, 708 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); State v. Gordon, 645 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), rev…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Betancourt, 552 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 1989)
- State v. Australia Ozell Rinkins, Jr., 646 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1994)
- State v. Henriquez, 717 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)