STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DARRICK C. ISSEL, 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 a downward departure sentence for a fourth DUI conviction, challenging the trial court's finding of "extreme duress" as the basis for the departure. The court reversed, finding no record evidence supported the duress rationale and requiring resentencing within guidelines.
The downward departure sentence was not supported by competent substantial evidence. Although extreme duress is an enumerated mitigating factor under Florida law, the record contained no evidence that Issel was coerced or threatened into driving under the influence, so the duress rationale lacked factual support.
[1] A downward departure sentence from the sentencing guidelines must be supported by competent substantial evidence.
[2] A trial court must impose a guidelines sentence unless the court finds that the evidence supports a valid reason for a departure sentence.
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“A trial court must impose a guidelines sentence unless the court finds that the evidence supports a valid reason for a departure sentence.”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that downward departures must have evidentiary support
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDarrick Issel entered an open plea to driving under the influence as a third or subsequent violation, his fourth DUI conviction. 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 Criminal Punishment Code Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
The State challenges the downward departure sentence the trial court imposed upon Darrick C. Issel for driving under the influence, a third or subsequent violation. Because the record does not support the trial court’s reason for departing downward, we reverse.
Issel entered an open plea to driving under the influence, a third or subsequent violation; it was his fourth DUI conviction. His Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet reflects a lowest permissible prison sentence of 19.8 months. At sentencing, the State argued that there was no legal reason for imposing a downward departure. In fact, when the trial court asked whether a suspended sentence was a legal sentence, the prosecutor stated that it was not and defense counsel stated that a suspended sentence is considered a downward departure. Ultimately, the trial court sentenced Issel to 365 days’ county jail suspended upon completion of a substance abuse program and thirty months’ DOC suspended in favor of thirty months’ probation. Issel’s scoresheet reflects that the trial court’s reason for departing downward was “extreme duress.”
“A trial court must impose a guidelines sentence unless the court finds that the evidence supports a valid reason for a departure sentence.” State v. Barnes, 753 So. 2d 605, 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (citing Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.701(d)); see also Banks v. State, 732 So. 2d 1065, 1067 (Fla.1999) (“[T]he court must determine whether it can depart, i.e., whether there is a valid legal ground and adequate factual support for that ground in the case pending before it.”). “A sentence that departs downward from the sentencing guidelines must be supported by competent substantial evidence.” Barnes, 753 So. 2d at 607.
Although extreme duress is a mitigating factor enumerated in section 921.0026(2), Florida Statutes (2002) (“The defendant acted under extreme duress or under the domination of another person.”), duress usually involves some sort of coercion or threat, see Black’s Law Dictionai°y 542 (8th ed.2004). The record here does not support the contention that Issel was driving while under the influence because he was coerced or threatened in any manner. For this reason, we must reverse his downward departure sentence and remand for resentencing.
Reversed and remanded.
SILBERMAN and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Donald B. Banks v. State, 732 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1999)
- State v. Barnes, 753 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)