MATTHEW THOGODE, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a Fifth District decision affirming Thogode's sentence and held that a trial court's failure to announce or file written reasons for imposing an upward departure sentence constitutes fundamental error reviewable on direct appeal, even without preservation, because it undermines the integrity of the sentencing process.
A trial court's failure to announce and file statutorily required written reasons for imposing an upward departure sentence constitutes fundamental error affecting the integrity of the sentencing process and may be raised on direct appeal even without preservation.
[1] A trial court's failure to provide statutorily required written reasons for imposing an upward departure sentence constitutes a fundamental error that may be raised on di…
[2] Fundamental sentencing errors affect the integrity of the sentencing process concerning the critical question of the length of the 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“the trial court's failure to file statutorily required written reasons for imposing an upward departure sentence constitutes a fundamental error that can be raised on direct appeal because the error "affects the integrity of the sentencing process concerning the critical question of the length of the sentence."”
Establishes the core holding that failure to provide written departure reasons is fundamental error affecting sentencing integrity
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThogode received an upward departure sentence without the trial court providing oral or written reasons for the departure. The State argued the trial …
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 Criminal Appeal Reform Act Of 1996 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the decision in Thogode v. State, 731 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), in which the Fifth District cited as controlling authority its opinion in Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), approved in part, disapproved in part, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981).
We recently held in Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89, 94-95 (Fla.2000), that certain sentencing errors will be considered “fundamental” and may be raised on direct appeal even though the error was not preserved for review.1 We found in Maddox that the trial court’s failure to file statutorily required written reasons for imposing an upward departure sentence constitutes a fundamental error that can be raised on direct appeal because the error “affects the integrity of the sentencing process concerning the critical question of the length of the sentence.” Id. at 107. The State does not contest Thogode’s assertion that the sentence imposed was an upward departure without oral or written reasons given by the trial judge. Instead, the State argues in this case that the trial court was not required to orally announce its reasons for imposing a departure sentence or to file written reasons for imposing a departure sentence because the court was not “aware” it was departing from the guidelines. See Respondent’s Answer Brief at 3. This argument, however, only reinforces our concern that the integrity of the sentencing process was undermined by the failure of the trial court to announce or file its reasons for imposing a departure sentence. In accordance with Maddox, we therefore quash the decision below and remand for proceedings consistent with our opinion in Maddox,2
It is so ordered.
SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ. concur. WELLS, J., dissents with an opinion, in which HARDING, C.J., concurs.
. Our decision in Maddox was expressly limited to those appeals falling in the window period between the enactment of section 924.051(3), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), part of the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996, and the enactment of our recent procedural rules in Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.111(e) & 3.800 & Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h), 9.140 & 9.600, 761 So. 2d 1015 (Fla.1999), reh'g granted (Fla. Jan. 13, 2000). This appeal falls within this window period.
. We decline to address the other issues raised by Thogode that are not the basis of our jurisdiction. See, e.g., Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592, 595 n. 3 (Fla.1999); McMullen v. State, 714 So. 2d 368, 373 (Fla.1998).
WELLS, J.,
dissenting.
In this case, the district court found that it was not contended on appeal that the error was fundamental. I believe this makes this case distinguishable.
HARDING, C.J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2008)…the statutory maximum, see Terry v. State, 764 So. 2d 571, 572 (Fla.2000); that the scoresheet was inaccurate, see State v. Anderson, 905 So. 2d 111, 118 (Fla.2005); that the trial court improperly imposed a departure sentence, see Thogode v. State, 763 So. 2d 281, 281 (Fla.2000); that the written order deviated from the oral pronouncement, see State v. Cote, 913 So. 2d 544 (Fla.2005); that the trial court improperly assessed costs, see Maddox, 760 So. 2d at 101-09; that the trial court improperly sentenced t…
-
Bryant v. State, 793 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 2001)…falls within this window period. . We decline to address the other issue raised by Bryant that is not the basis of our jurisdiction. See Collins, 766 So. 2d at 1010 n. 3 (citing Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592, 595 n. 3 (Fla.1999)); Thogode v. State, 763 So. 2d 281, 282 n. 2 (Fla.2000).…
-
Matchett v. State, 791 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2001)…l court’s failure to file written reasons for the departure sentence on the armed robbery constitutes fundamental error. Accord Edwards v. State, 771 So. 2d 1136, 1137 (Fla.2000); Collins v. State, 766 So. 2d 1009, 1010 (Fla.2000); Thogode v. State, 763 So. 2d 281, 282 (Fla.2000). Accordingly, we quash the Third District’s decision and remand for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion in Maddox. It is so ordered. SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur. WELLS, C.J., dissents…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1999)
- Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Amendments TO Fla. Rules OF Crim. Procedure 3.111(e) & 3.800 & Fla. Rules OF App. Procedure 9.020(h), 791 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2001)
- McMULLEN v. State, 714 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1998)
- Thogode v. State, 731 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)