MARIO M. MCCORVEY, 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.
Trial court erred by sentencing appellant to the minimum under the Criminal Punishment Code based on the mistaken belief that it could only consider statutory mitigating factors, when non-statutory factors may also support downward departures.
A trial court may consider non-statutory mitigating factors in addition to those enumerated in section 921.0026 when determining whether to impose a downward departure from the Criminal Punishment Code guidelines.
[1] A trial court may consider non-statutory mitigating circumstances in addition to those enumerated in section 921.0026, Florida Statutes, when determining whether to impos…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 statutory mitigating circumstances are not exclusive”
Court's statement of the controlling legal principle regarding what factors may support downward departures in sentencing.
Appellant was sentenced following revocation of community control. The trial court imposed the lowest permissible sentence under the Criminal Punishme…
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 Statutory Mitigating Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this direct appeal of a sentence imposed following revocation of community control, the appellant claims that the trial court erred when it sentenced him to the lowest permissible sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code after expressing the erroneous belief that it could not consider as reasons for a downward departure any factors that were not specifically enumerated in section 921.0026, Florida Statutes (2003). The appellant is correct; the statutory mitigating circumstances are not exclusive. See § 921.0026(2), Fla. Stat. (2003); see also e.g., State v. VanBebber, 848 So. 2d 1046, 1048 (Fla.2003); State v. Tyrrell, 807 So. 2d 122, 125 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
We do not reach the question of whether the non-statutory reasons proffered by the appellant would have been sufficient to support a downward departure. Nonetheless, the trial court sentenced the appellant “under a misconception about its discretion in sentencing.” Hines v. State, 817 So. 2d 964, 965-66 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Because we are unable to determine from this record whether the trial court would have imposed a downward departure if it understood that it was allowed to consider non-statutory factors, we reverse the appellant’s sentence and “remand for the trial court to reconsider the sentence in light of its discretion to depart if the facts so warrant.” Id.
BARFIELD, DAVIS and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kemar Rochester v. State, 95 So. 3d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…tion omitted). First, we reject without discussion the State’s contention that the issue was not preserved for review and that we have no jurisdiction to review this appeal because the sentence was within the statutory limit. See McCorvey v. State, 872 So. 2d 395, 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (addressing appellant’s claim that the trial court erred when it expressed the belief that it could not consider any factors not enumerated in section 921.0026 for a downward departure sentence); Hines v. State, 817 So. 2d 9…
-
Childers v. State, 171 So. 3d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…“ ‘think’ ” that the appellant was “ ‘mitigation eligible’ ”). For the reasons stated herein, we think the same disposition is appropriate in this case. Accordingly, we reverse Appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing. See McCorvey v. State, 872 So. 2d 395, 395-96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (concluding that the trial court sentenced the appellant under a misconception about its discretion in sentencing and reversing the appellant’s sentence and remanding for the trial court to reconsider the sentence in ligh…
-
Patrizi v. State, 31 So. 3d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…4); Patterson v. State, 796 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Melton v. State, 678 So. 2d 434, 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The state candidly disclosed to this court the opinions in Hines v. State, 817 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) and McCorvey v. State, 872 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). In those cases, the appellate courts did consider defendants’ appeals of their lowest-permissible guidelines sentences, imposed after the trial courts declined to depart downward. To the extent that these opinions “otherwise pro…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Tyrrell, 807 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Hines v. State, 817 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- State v. VanBEBBER, 848 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 2003)