CHARLES L. BRYANT, 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.
A trial court's failure to file written reasons for an upward departure sentence constitutes fundamental error correctable on direct appeal for appeals filed within a specific window period.
[1] A trial court's failure to file written reasons for imposing an upward departure sentence constitutes fundamental error.
[2] Fundamental error resulting from a trial court's failure to provide written reasons for an upward departure sentence may be corrected on direct appeal for appeals filed w…
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 intelligenceThe Third District Court of Appeal reviewed a case where the trial court failed to provide written reasons for an upward departure sentence. The appel…
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
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Bryant v. State, 752 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), a per cu-riam decision of the Third District Court of Appeal citing as controlling authority its prior opinions in Weiss v. State, 720 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), approved, 761 So. 2d 318 (Fla.2000); and Jordan v. State, 728 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), approved, 761 So. 2d 320 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981).
The issue in this case involves the trial comb’s failure to comply with the statutory requirement to file written reasons for imposing an upward departure sentence. In Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89, 106-08 (Fla.2000), we determined 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.1 See also Edmondson v. State, 771 So. 2d 1136, 1136 (Fla.2000). Accordingly, 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 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.” Bryant’s appeal, filed December 29, 1998, 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).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Luparelli v. State, 825 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Bryant v. State, 793 So. 2d 906 (Fla.2001); Collins v. State, 766 So. 2d 1009 (Fla.2000). THOMPSON, C.J., SAWAYA and PLEUS, JJ., concur.…
-
Youells v. State, 825 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Bryant v. State, 793 So. 2d 906 (Fla.2001); Collins v. State, 766 So. 2d 1009 (Fla.2000); Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla.2000). SHARP, W., GRIFFIN and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.…
-
Bryant v. State, 861 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…Confession of Error PER CURIAM. Charles L. Bryant has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, which requests enforcement of the mandate on remand from Bryant v. State, 793 So. 2d 906 (Fla.2001). See Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice § 18.10, at 282 n. 2 (2003). As the State concedes, defendant-movant Bryant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing in the trial court, with the assistance of counsel. If the trial court…
Authorities Cited (13 total)
- 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)
- 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)
- Weiss v. State, 720 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Jordan v. State, 728 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Collins v. State, 766 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 2000)
- Sirron Johnson v. State, 761 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2000)
- Carter v. State, 752 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Thogode v. State, 763 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 2000)