STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM J. YOUNG, 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 appealed downward departure sentences imposed on William Young for burglary and grand theft, challenging the trial court's authority to impose below-guideline sentences without evidence supporting such departures. The appellate court held that absent evidentiary support tailored to each offense, downward departure sentences violate Florida sentencing law and reversed the sentences for remand.
The court held that downward departure sentences on the burglary and grand theft counts violated Florida law because there was no evidence adduced at sentencing to support downward departures for those specific offenses. Only the lewd and lascivious battery charge had evidentiary support for departure.
[1] A downward departure sentence is improper when the reasons supporting the departure do not apply to the specific offenses for which the sentence is imposed.
[2] A downward departure sentence requires circumstances or factors that reasonably justify the departure.
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 intelligence“unless there are circumstances or factors that reasonably justify the downward departure”
Establishes the statutory requirement for downward departure sentences under Florida law, section 921.0026(1)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYoung pleaded no contest to lewd and lascivious battery, burglary of an unoccupied dwelling, and grand theft. His Criminal Punishment Code score-sheet…
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 Downward Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
CANADY, Judge.
The State appeals William J. Young’s downward departure sentences for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and grand theft. Because there was no evidence sup porting downward departure sentences on these two offenses, we reverse and remand.
Young was charged in one case with lewd and lascivious battery and in another case with burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and grand theft. Young entered no contest pleas to all three offenses. Young scored a minimum of 98.8 months in prison on his Criminal Punishment Code score-sheet for the offenses. The trial court sentenced him on all three counts to downward departure sentences of one year in jail followed by probation based on the trial court’s findings that the victim of the lewd and lascivious battery (Young’s ex-girlfriend) was a willing participant and that Young was too young to appreciate the consequences of his actions. The trial court also cited Young’s age and acceptance of responsibility as further reasons for the departure.
The State argues that the trial court erred in sentencing Young to departure sentences on the burglary and grand theft counts because there was no evidence introduced at the sentencing hearing supporting downward departures for either offense. We agree.
The evidence introduced at the sentencing hearing supporting a downward departure related solely to the lewd and lascivious battery charge, and there was no evidence adduced to support the downward departure reasons as they apply to the burglary and grand theft charges. The challenged downward departure sentences therefore violate the prohibition in section 921.0026(1), Florida Statutes (2003), of downward departure sentences that applies “unless there are circumstances or factors that reasonably justify the downward departure.” See State v. Scott, 879 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reversing downward departure sentence because there was no evidence adduced to support the departure); State v. Canty, 858 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (reversing a downward departure sentence for grand theft because the reasons given related to another case and had no apparent relationship to the grand theft charge). Accordingly, we reverse the burglary and grand theft sentences and remand to the trial court for imposition of guidelines sentences. See State v. Sahadeo, 890 So. 2d 464, 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
Reversed and remanded.
STRINGER and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Canty, 858 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- State v. Sahadeo, 890 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Brandful v. State, 858 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- State v. Scott, 879 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)