ELI BUTLER, JR., 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.
Butler challenges an upward departure sentence, arguing it must be vacated because the trial court failed to file written reasons for the departure, despite explaining its rationale on the record at sentencing. The appellate court, constrained by precedent in Maddox v. State, reverses and remands for imposition of a guidelines sentence.
The court holds that because no written reasons were filed, the departure sentence must be reversed and the case remanded with directions that the trial court impose a guidelines sentence, as required by Maddox v. State.
[1] A departure sentence must be reversed and remanded for imposition of a guidelines sentence if the trial court fails to file written reasons justifying the departure, even…
[2] The policy reasons for requiring written reasons for a departure sentence remain applicable following the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996 for defendants who did not ag…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“conclude that for defendants [such as appellant] who did not agree to the imposition of a departure sentence in a plea agreement, the policy reasons for correcting a departure sentence in which the trial court failed to file statutorily required written reasons for departure are still applicable following the Act”
Establishes the holding from Maddox that constrains the court to reverse despite statements on the record
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court imposed an upward departure sentence and explained its reasons on the record during the sentencing hearing. Appellant's counsel object…
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
WEBSTER, J.
In Butler v. State, 761 So. 2d 319 (Fla.2000), the supreme court quashed our pri- or decision in this case, Butler v. State, 728 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), and remanded for further proceedings in light of Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000).
In this case, the trial court explained on the record at the sentencing hearing why it was imposing an upward departure sentence. Although appellant’s counsel objected to the reasons announced by the trial court during the sentencing hearing, appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of those reasons on appeal. Appellant’s sole argument on appeal is that the departure sentence must be vacated and the ease remanded for imposition of a guidelines sentence because the trial court never filed written reasons justifying its upward departure.
In Maddox, the court “conelude[d] that for defendants [such as appellant] who did not agree to the imposition of a departure sentence in a plea agreement, the policy reasons for correcting a departure sentence in which the trial court failed to file statutorily required written reasons for departure are still applicable following the Act [i.e., The Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996].” 760 So. 2d at 107. It seems to us that all of the policy concerns identified by the court are satisfied by a statement on the record at sentencing explaining the basis for a departure sentence; that the requirement of written reasons affords no additional safeguards; and that requiring the reversal of a departure sentence and a remand for the imposition of a guidelines sentence in such a situation elevates form at the expense of substance. Nevertheless, we conclude that we are constrained by Maddox to reverse the departure sentence because no written reasons were filed, and to remand with directions that the trial court impose a guidelines sentence. See Maddox, 760 So. 2d at 107; Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990). Accordingly, the departure sentence is reversed, and the case is remanded with directions that the trial court impose a guidelines sentence.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
WOLF and LAWRENCE, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pressley v. State, 921 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…3.800(b)(2), the trial court denied the motion without stating reasons for departure (or signing and filing the transcript). This failure distinguishes the case from Mandri v. State, 813 So. 2d 65, 66 (Fla.2002), and brings it under Butler v. State, 765 So. 2d 274, 275 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Accordingly, here, as in Butler, we reverse and remand for sentencing under the guidelines. See also Haynes v. State, 843 So. 2d 993, 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Edwards v. State, 770 So. 2d 179, 179-80 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Ed…
-
Edwards v. State, 770 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…. This court recently held on the authority of Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000), that a departure sentence for which no written reasons were filed must be reversed and be remanded for resen-tencing under the guidelines. See Butler v. State, 765 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Accordingly, this cause is REVERSED and REMANDED for resentencing in accordance with the sentencing guidelines. BARFIELD, C.J., VAN NORTWICK AND PADOVANO, JJ„ CONCUR.…
-
Edmondson v. State, 777 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…n in this case, Edmondson v. State, 745 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), and remanded for further proceedings in light of Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000). The pertinent facts of this case are indistinguishable from those in Butler v. State, 765 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Accordingly, as in Butler, we conclude that we are constrained to reverse the upward departure sentences imposed, and to remand with directions that the trial court impose guidelines sentences. See Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1990)
- Eli Butler, Jr. v. State, 761 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 2000)