WALTER PATTERSON, 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.
Walter Patterson appealed his concurrent habitual offender sentences for two burglaries (12 years each) and grand theft (5 years) imposed pursuant to a plea agreement. The appellate court affirmed the sentences but reversed and remanded regarding an improperly imposed $150 discretionary cost that lacked required statutory findings.
The appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the trial court's discretionary denial of a downward departure under the Criminal Punishment Code. Scoresheet errors were harmless because the five-year grand theft sentence was legal and agreed to in the plea. The $150 discretionary cost was improperly imposed because the trial court failed to make required findings of ability to pay and non-interference with child support and restitution, and this requirement could not be waived by plea agreement.
[1] A trial court's discretionary decision to deny a downward departure sentence is not reviewable on direct appeal under the current statutory scheme.
[2] Errors on a sentencing scoresheet are harmless if the defendant receives habitual offender sentences for other charges and agrees to the sentence imposed for the charge a…
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 current statutory scheme does not give this court the power to review on direct appeal a trial court's discretionary decision to deny a downward departure.”
Establishes the limitation on appellate jurisdiction to review denial of downward departure sentences under the Criminal Punishment Code.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatterson committed burglary and grand theft offenses on February 19, 1999, and received concurrent sentences as a habitual offender pursuant to a wri…
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 Scoresheet Error cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Acting Chief Judge.
Walter Patterson appeals his sentences for two counts of burglary and one count of grand theft. Mr. Patterson received concurrent, habitual offender sentences of twelve years’ imprisonment for each burglary and a concurrent sentence of five years’ imprisonment for grand theft. The sentences were imposed pursuant to a written plea agreement. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Mr. Patterson raises three issues, all of which he preserved by filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).1 Mr. Patterson asserts that (1) the trial court abused its discretion in failing to impose a downward departure sentence, (2) the scoresheet applicable to the grand theft charge contained errors, and (3) the trial court erred in imposing a discretionary cost of $150.
We find reversible error only as to the third issue. Mr. Patterson committed his offenses on February 19, 1999, and is thus subject to the provisions of the Criminal Punishment Code. See § 921.002, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998).
The State argues that this court lacks “jurisdiction” to review whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to impose a downward departure sentence. See § 924.06(l)(a-e), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998); Hochhauser v. State, 785 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). This court has jurisdiction over Mr. Patterson’s appeal of his sentences. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A); 9.140(b)(1)(E), (F).
We conclude, however, that section 924.06(1) restricts this court’s scope of review. The current statutory scheme does not give this court the power to review on direct appeal a trial court’s discretionary decision to deny a downward departure. Mr. Patterson’s sentences are not illegal, and we conclude that the sentences contain no error that we are empowered to correct.
Mr. Patterson next challenges errors appearing on the face of his score-sheet. The trial court considered a score-sheet that included all of Mr. Patterson’s offenses, including the ones for which he received habitual offender sentences. The scoresheet also included points for a community sanction violation. Although the scoresheet is incorrect, we find these errors harmless. Because Mr. Patterson received habitual offender sentences for each burglary charge, the scoresheet applied only to the grand theft charge. The five-year sentence Mr. Patterson received for this charge is a legal sentence, and Mr. Patterson agreed to the sentence when entering his plea to all of the charges.
We reverse, however, that portion of the judgment requiring Mr. Patterson to pay $150 pursuant to section 939.18(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1999).
Section 939.18(l)(b) allows the trial court to impose this discretionary cost if it finds that the person has the ability to pay the cost, and payment of the cost will not interfere with the person’s ability to pay child support and restitution.
The trial court did not make these findings. In his plea agreement, Mr. Patterson waived any objection to the trial court’s failure to orally impose this cost. This waiver, however, did not excuse the trial court’s compliance with the provisions of section 939.18(l)(b), particularly when the findings required by section 939.18(l)(b) are for the protection of third parties who may be owed restitution or child support. Cf. Tolbert v. State, 698 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding trial court must comply with procedures in imposing discretionary costs pursuant to section 939.01, Florida Statutes (1995), notwithstanding plea agreement purporting to waive objections to costs).
We reverse this portion of the sentence and remand to strike this cost from the judgment.
The trial court may again impose this cost after complying with section 939.18(l)(b). Tolbert, 698 So. 2d 1288.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
NORTHCUTT and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur. . The trial judge did not rule upon Mr. Patterson’s motion within sixty days, and the motion is therefore deemed denied. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Ayoub v. State, 901 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…rs, and community control orders and remand for the trial court to reconsider imposition of the cost if it makes the necessary findings required by section 939.18(l)(b). See Caton v. State, 862 So. 2d 901, 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Patterson v. State, 796 So. 2d 572, 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Ayoub further challenges a $3 cost imposed pursuant to Pasco County Ordinance 97-03 for the Juvenile Assessment Center. Ayoub argues that the trial court lacked statutory authority to impose this cost and that a trial court…
-
Barnhill v. State, 140 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…ections 921.0026(2)(d) and (2)(i). II. Scope of review We first address the State’s argument that we lack authority to review the trial court’s decision to deny a downward departure sentence in this case based on our opinion in Patterson v. State, 796 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), review denied, 817 So. 2d 849 (Fla.2002). There, we held that section 924.06(1), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998), did not give us power to review a trial court’s discretionary decision to deny a downward departure sentence. We dete…
-
Othouse v. State, 912 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…ny Othouse challenges the circuit court’s refusal to impose a downward departure sentence after he pleaded guilty to charges of accessory after the fact to second-degree murder and to attempted first-degree murder. We affirm. See Patterson v. State, 796 So. 2d 572, 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). After sentencing, Othouse filed a motion to mitigate his sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). But three days later he filed his notice of appeal. That notice divested the circuit court of jurisdi…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tolbert v. State, 698 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Hochhauser v. State, 785 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)