CARLOS MANDRI, 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 initially file written reasons for a departure sentence is subject to harmless error analysis, even if reasons are later provided in response to a Rule 3.800(b) motion.
The trial court failed to file written reasons for a departure sentence but later provided them in response to a defendant's motion. The Third Distric…
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 Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(B) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Mandri v. State, 767 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), reh’g denied and question certified, 767 So. 2d at 524, in which the Third District certified the following question as one of great public importance:
WHERE A TRIAL COURT FAILS TO FILE WRITTEN REASONS IN SUPPORT OF A GUIDELINES DEPARTURE SENTENCE BUT, THEREAFTER, IN RESPONSE TO A FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.800(B) MOTION FILED BY DEFENDANT, DOES FILE WRITTEN REASONS JUSTIFYING THE DEPARTURE, IS DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A REVERSAL AND A REMAND FOR A GUIDELINES SENTENCE, UNDER MADDOX V. STATE, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000)?
Mandri, 767 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, 760 So. 2d 89, 108 (Fla.2000). Thus, the trial court’s errors in filing the written reasons for departure were subject to harmless error analysis. See Weiss, 761 So. 2d at 319. We therefore approve the Third District’s decision and answer the certified question in the negative.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ., concur in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goldberg v. State, 76 So. 3d 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…to the public. The trial court may well have been able to correct its initial failure to make the necessary written findings required by section 775.082(10) by doing so in response to Goldberg’s rule 3.800(b)(2) motion. See, e.g., Mandri v. State, 813 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 2002) (trial court’s failure to file written reasons in support of guidelines departure sentence was harmless error corrected by court’s filing of written reasons in response to motion for correction of sentence). However, it failed to do so.…
-
Pressley v. State, 921 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…script) in a motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 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 200…
-
Beck v. State, 817 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…s of procedure were neither designed to nor intended to be an escape device from justice. After oral argument but while this appeal was under consideration, the Supreme Court of Florida issued an opinion on precisely this issue. In Mandri v. State, 813 So. 2d 65 (Fla.2002), the court answered the following certified question in the negative: WHERE A TRIAL COURT FAILS TO FILE WRITTEN REASONS IN SUPPORT OF A GUIDELINES DEPARTURE SENTENCE BUT, THEREAFTER, IN RESPONSE TO A FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.…
Previewing 3 of 10 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)
- Sirron Johnson v. State, 761 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2000)
- Matchett v. State, 791 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2001)
- Mandri v. State, 767 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)