THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JUSTIN BROWNELL, 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.
Florida appeals a trial court's downward departure sentence imposed on a habitual offender convicted of attempted robbery, battery, and grand theft of a vehicle. The appellate court reverses because the trial judge failed to provide written or oral reasons for the departure from the mandatory minimum sentence.
The trial court must provide written or oral reasons for any downward departure sentence, even for habitual offenders. The State properly preserved its objection to the downward departure by objecting at sentencing and informing the court of the mandatory minimum sentence.
[1] A trial court's failure to state oral or written reasons for a downward departure sentence, despite the State's objection and provision of the lowest permissible sentence…
[2] A defendant's objection to a downward departure sentence is preserved for appellate review when the State objects and informs the trial court of the lowest permissible se…
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“Since the trial judge failed to state any reason for the downward departure, either orally or in writing, the conviction and sentence are reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court to give the trial judge the opportunity to re-sentence the defendant and provide the written reasons for the departure sentence or to allow the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial or be re-sentenced under the guidelines.”
Establishes the core holding that trial courts must provide written or oral reasons for downward departures from mandatory minimums
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was charged with attempted robbery, battery, and third-degree grand theft of a vehicle. The State requested habitual offender sentencing…
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 Written Reasons For Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
SUAREZ, J.
The State appeals a downward departure after a plea and sentence as a habitual offender to attempted robbery, battery and grand theft of a vehicle. We reverse.
The defendant was charged with one count of attempted robbery, one count of battery and one count of third degree grand theft of a vehicle. At the defen dant’s arraignment, the State requested that the defendant be sentenced as a habitual offender, and the prosecutor informed the trial judge that the lowest permissible sentence was 29.1 months in state prison. The defendant pled guilty. The trial judge sentenced the defendant, upon his request, to two consecutive, 364-day terms in the county jail as a habitual offender over the State’s objection to the downward departure.
The State now appeals the downward departure and claims error in the failure of the trial court to support the sentence either orally or in writing.
The objection presented by the State to the trial judge to the downward departure along with the information provided by the State to the trial court of the lowest permissible sentence were sufficient to preserve the objection to the downward departure for appellate review. State v. Roberts, 824 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); State v. Paulk, 813 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); State v. Barnes, 753 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Since the trial judge failed to state any reason for the downward departure, either orally or in writing, the conviction and sentence are reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court to give the trial judge the opportunity to re-sentence the defendant and provide the written reasons for the departure sentence or to allow the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial or be re-sentenced under the guidelines. § 921.002(3), Fla. Stat. (2005); State v. Rinkins, 646 So. 2d 727 (Fla.1994) (even if defendant habitual offender, trial court required to state appropriate written reasons for downward departure); State v. McLeod, 652 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (same). See also State v. Bryant, 882 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); State v. Mendez, 835 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Green, 932 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…with the trial court alone, to which the state clearly objected, and from which it said it would appeal. Because there is acknowledgedly no basis for the downward departure, and the state adequately preserved the issue below, see State v. Brownell, 922 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); see also State v. Paulk, 813 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), review denied, 832 So. 2d 105 (Fla.2002); State v. Perez, 802 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), review denied, 823 So. 2d 125 (Fla.2002); State v. Turro, 724 So. 2d 1216 (…
-
State v. Roberts, 963 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. As in State v. Green, 932 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), State v. Brownell, 922 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), and State v. Mendez, 835 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), we reverse the downward departure sentence entered pursuant to a court-initiated agreement with the defendant in which the state did not participate, because it was (of cour…
-
State v. Watson, 971 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…enter a guidelines sentence or to permit appellee to withdraw his plea. See State v. Roberts, 963 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); State v. Ahua, 947 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); State v. Green, 932 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); State v. Brownell, 922 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Reversed and remanded. . [PROSECUTOR]: I'm sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt [defense counsel] but I feel I need to. I was under the impression defendant was not a career criminal when I was making the assessment and making th…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Australia Ozell Rinkins, Jr., 646 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1994)
- State v. Paulk, 813 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- State v. Barnes, 753 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- State v. Roberts, 824 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- State v. Geronimo Mendez, 835 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- State v. McLEOD, 652 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- State v. O'Neal Bryant, 882 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)