DONNA MELISSA COLLINS, 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 held that a trial court's imposition of an upward departure sentence without filing statutorily required written reasons constitutes fundamental sentencing error that may be raised on direct appeal, even absent preservation, during a specific window period. The court quashed the district court's decision and remanded for reconsideration consistent with its recent Maddox decision.
The failure to file written reasons for an upward departure sentence constitutes fundamental sentencing error that may be raised on direct appeal during the window period established by the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996, even absent preservation. This applies when the defendant did not agree to the departure sentence in a plea negotiation.
[1] The failure of a trial court to file statutorily required written reasons for imposing an upward departure sentence constitutes a fundamental sentencing error that may be…
[2] Fundamental sentencing errors may be raised on direct appeal even if the error was not preserved for review.
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 failure of the trial court to file statutorily required written reasons for imposing an upward departure sentence constitutes a fundamental sentencing error that may be raised on direct appeal during the window period”
Establishes the core holding that statutory requirements for written sentencing reasons are fundamental and may be raised without preservation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCollins entered a guilty plea in return for the State's agreement to drop additional charges and recommend a guidelines sentence, but no specific agre…
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 Fundamental Error In Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the decision in Collins v. State, 732 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), on the basis of express and direct conflict. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We recently concluded in Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (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 determined in Maddox that the failure of the trial court to file statutorily required written reasons for imposing an upward departure sentence constitutes a fundamental sentencing error that may be raised on direct appeal during the window period. See id. at 108.
Collins contends that the trial court erroneously imposed an upward departure sentence without filing written reasons as required by statute. Although Collins entered a guilty plea in return for the State’s agreement to drop additional charges and recommend a guidelines sentence, no specific agreement as to the sentence was reached. The State does not contest that the trial court imposed an upward departure sentence without filing statutorily required written reasons.2 Accordingly, we quash the district court’s decision, and remand for further proceedings consistent with our opinion in Maddox.3
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. WELLS, J., dissents.
. 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, 761 So. 2d at 1025. This appeal falls within this window period.
. We stated in Maddox that we did not intend to recede from our previous cases holding that the failure to file written reasons for imposing a departure sentence pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement does not constitute reversible error. See Maddox, 760 So. 2d 89, 107 (citing State v. Williams, 667 So. 2d 191, 193-94 (Fla. 1996)). However, because Collins did not. agree to the imposition of a departure sentence in a negotiated plea, Williams is inapposite. See Hoffman v. State, 700 So. 2d 765, 766-67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (recognizing that sentencing guidelines are applicable to a defendant who did not agree to imposition of departure sentence in plea agreement), review denied, 717 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1998).
. We decline to address the other issues raised by Collins 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).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Lanora Malone v. State, 777 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…GRIFFIN, J., concurring specially. Based on the supreme court’s subsequent descriptions of the holding in Maddox, I concur. Edwards v. State, 771 So. 2d 1136 (Fla.2000); Collins v. State, 766 So. 2d 1009, n. 1 (Fla.2000).…
-
Bryant v. State, 793 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 2001)…rdingly, we quash the decision below and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.2 It is so ordered. WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur. . As this Court noted in Collins v. State, 766 So. 2d 1009, 1009 n. 1 (Fla.2000): "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 Appeals Reform Act of 1996, and the en…
-
Ola Lee Labon v. State, 827 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Collins v. State, 766 So. 2d 1009 (Fla.2000). HARRIS, SAWAYA and ORFINGER, R. B., JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 18 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)
- Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1999)
- 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)
- State v. Williams, 667 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1996)
- Collins v. State, 732 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Hoffman v. State, 700 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)