STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MAURICE FULKS, 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.
The State appeals a downward departure sentence imposed on Maurice Fulks for grand theft and aggravated assault. The trial court's departure was based on a mutual mistake of law regarding sentencing guidelines, which is not a valid basis for departure under Florida law. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing.
A downward departure based on mutual mistake of law is not valid. Additionally, even if such a departure were permissible, the trial court was required to reduce the reason for departure to writing, which it failed to do. Therefore, the sentence must be reversed and remanded.
[1] A downward departure sentence is invalid if based on a mutual mistake of law.
[2] A trial court must reduce any reason for a downward departure sentence to writing.
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“"Mutual mistake of law" is not a valid basis for departure.”
Establishes the primary legal principle that defeats the trial court's rationale for the downward departure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFulks faced charges in two cases: grand theft and aggravated assault in case 02-21275 (from December 2002 events) and a probation violation in case 00…
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 Mutual Mistake Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Chief Judge.
The State appeals Maurice Fulks’ downward departure sentence for grand theft and aggravated assault. Despite the best intentions of the trial judge, we must reverse.
Mr. Fulks had two cases pending when he attended a pretrial conference on May 21, 2003. In the newer case, case number 02-21275, Mr. Fulks was charged with grand theft and aggravated assault for events occurring on December 12, 2002. In the older case, case number 00-02899, Mr. Fulks had pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and had been placed on probation. As a result of the newer offenses, an affidavit of violation of probation was pending in this older case.
At the pretrial conference, the trial court initially suggested to the defendant that he accept concurrent five-year terms of imprisonment for the newer offenses and the violation of probation. When the trial court made this suggestion, the parties believed that these sentences would be slightly above the minimum sentence that could be imposed under the Criminal Punishment Code. Thereafter, the parties realized that both the newer case and the older case must be combined and scored on a single scoresheet. When the new scoresheet was calculated, the judge’s proposal became a significant downward departure.
The trial judge felt honor-bound to leave this proposal available to the defendant. The defendant accepted the proposal over the State’s objection. When the State required a reason for this downward departure, the trial court stated: “Having made my offer, I was not going to go back on my offer if it was accepted here today.” No reason for the downward departure was ever reduced to writing. Accordingly, the trial judge sentenced Mr. Fulks to concurrent five-year terms of imprisonment for both cases. The State appealed only the sentence imposed in the newer case.
The downward departure sentence in the newer case must be reversed. “Mutual mistake of law” is not a valid basis for departure. See § 921.0026(1), Fla. Stat. (2001). Even if it were, the trial court would have been required to reduce the reason to writing. See Franquiz v. State, 682 So. 2d 536 (Fla.1996). Accordingly, the sentence in the newer case must be reversed. On remand, Mr. Fulks must be provided the option of withdrawing his plea in both cases.
Reversed and remanded.
WHATLEY and CANADY, JJ., Concur.