PATRICK MATCHETT, 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 complete failure to file written reasons for an upward departure sentence constitutes fundamental error that can be corrected on direct appeal, distinguishing this case from the late filing of reasons. The court reversed the Third District Court of Appeal's decision that had held the issue was not preserved.
A trial court's failure to file written reasons for an upward departure sentence constitutes fundamental error that can be corrected on direct appeal, even when the defendant entered into a negotiated plea agreement, if that plea agreement did not encompass the count receiving the departure sentence.
[1] A trial court's failure to file written reasons justifying the imposition of a departure sentence constitutes fundamental error that can be corrected on direct appeal.
[2] A negotiated plea agreement can form the basis for an upward 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“a trial court's failure to file written reasons justifying the imposition of a departure sentence constituted fundamental error that could be corrected on direct appeal for those appeals that fell within the window period”
Establishes that failure to file written reasons for departure, as opposed to late filing, is fundamental error subject to appellate correction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMatchett was convicted of armed robbery and received an upward departure sentence. The trial court failed to file any written reasons justifying the d…
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 Upward Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1088] PARIENTE, J.
We have for review Matchett v. State, 755 So. 2d 778, 779 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal that held that Matchett’s claim regarding the trial court’s failure to file a written order setting forth the basis for an upward departure as to Matchett’s sentence of armed robbery was not preserved, citing to its prior decision in Weiss v. State, 720 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), approved, 761 So. 2d 318 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981).
In Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89, 108 (Fla.2000), we specifically distinguished between the late filing of reasons .for an upward departure sentence and the failure to file written reasons. We determined in Maddox that a trial court’s failure to file written reasons justifying the imposition of a departure sentence constituted fundamental error that could be corrected on direct appeal for those appeals that fell within the window period. 760 So. 2d at 106-08. Because Weiss involved only the late filing of reasons for a departure sentence, see Weiss, 720 So. 2d at 1114, we affirmed the Third District’s opinion holding the error harmless. See Weiss, 761 So. 2d at 318.
In this case, the trial court failed to file written reasons for departure at all, rather than faded to timely file reasons for the departure sentence, as in Weiss. The State contends, however, that because Matchett’s sentence was the result of a negotiated plea, the need to file written reasons for the departure sentence was obviated. Although a negotiated plea can form the basis for an upward departure sentence, see Maddox, 760 So. 2d at 107, the plea agreement in this case did not encompass the armed robbery count. Therefore, pursuant to Maddox, 760 So. 2d at 108, the trial 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mandri v. State, 813 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 2002)…7 So. 2d at 524. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. In Weiss v. State, 761 So. 2d 318, 319 (Fla.2000), we approved the application of the harmless error doctrine to nonfun-damental sentencing error. See also Matchett v. State, 791 So. 2d 1087 (Fla.2001). In the case before us, the trial court did not commit fundamental error, as the petitioner was not prejudiced in his ability to challenge the trial court’s reasons for imposing the departure sentence on direct appeal. See Maddox v. State…
-
Esquivel v. State, 958 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…Current case law, however, has drawn a clear distinction between a complete failure to file written reasons for departure and technical procedural errors, generally late filings, which do not prejudice defendants. See and compare Matchett v. State, 791 So. 2d 1087 (Fla.2001); Pressley v. State, 921 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Butler v. State, 765 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); with Mandri v. State, 813 So. 2d 65 (Fla.2002); Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000); Beck v. State, 817 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 5t…
Authorities Cited
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Weiss v. State, 720 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Collins v. State, 766 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 2000)
- Sirron Johnson v. State, 761 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2000)
- Thogode v. State, 763 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 2000)
- Edmondson v. State, 771 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 2000)
- Edwards v. State, 771 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 2000)
- Marshall v. State, 755 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)