THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES GREEN, 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 trial court's downward departure sentence imposed on James Green, arguing the court failed to provide written reasons for the departure. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the sentence, holding that the State failed to properly preserve the issue by not objecting to the downward departure or requesting reasons at sentencing.
The State failed to properly preserve the issue because it did not object to the downward departure or request reasons for the departure at sentencing. The State merely withdrew from negotiations. Without proper preservation through a precise objection calling the court's attention to the need for downward departure reasons, the appellate court cannot review the claim of error.
[1] A party must object to a downward departure sentence and request written reasons to preserve the issue for appeal.
[2] Withdrawal from plea negotiations does not constitute an objection to a downward departure sentence.
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“to properly preserve the issue, the State must call the court's attention to the need for downward departure reasons with a proper objection”
Establishes the legal standard for preservation of downward departure sentencing issues on appeal
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Green was charged with a felony. During trial, the court inquired about plea offers. The State initially offered either five years or three year…
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 Sentencing Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
The State of Florida (the “State”) appeals defendant-appellee James Green’s downward departure sentence. We affirm.
The State claims that the downward departure sentence of defendant Green was error because the State objected to the sentence and the trial court failed to provide written reasons in support of the downward departure. The defendant argues that the matter was not properly preserved by an objection which was sufficiently precise to fairly inform the trial court of the error. We agree with the defendant.
During the defendant’s trial, as the court was about to rule on the admissibility of a key piece of evidence, the court inquired about what plea offers had been extended in the case. The State extended two alternative offers. Neither was accepted by the defendant, but the defendant said that he would accept thirty months in prison. There was then a sidebar conference after which the following exchange took place:
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: My client will take 36 months.
THE COURT: All right. Stand up.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Does he get credit- for the time he’s served, Judge?
THE COURT: Yes, and as an HO with modalities.
[STATE]: For the record, I’d say the State did try to withdraw from negotiations. We offered five years or three years followed by three years and HO and this is—
THE COURT: Okay.
[STATE]: — but we did withdraw—
*797THE COURT: Okay. After I offered it you withdrew.
The court then sentenced defendant to thirty-six months incarceration as a habitual felony offender. The defendant’s guidelines sentence was eighty-four months incarceration.
The State has appealed, arguing that the sentence was a downward departure without departure reasons. We affirm the sentence because the State failed to preserve the issue in the trial court. As we have previously stated, to properly preserve the issue, the State must call the court’s attention to the need for downward departure reasons with a proper objection. See State v. Merriweather, 875 So.2d 1288 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); State v. Henriquez, 717 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); see also State v. Golkiewicz, 930 So.2d 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). The State did not object to the downward departure and did not request reasons for the downward departure. The State merely withdrew from negotiations.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Harvey, 274 So. 3d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Henriquez, 717 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Vickers v. State, 875 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Goodwin v. State, 930 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- State v. Golkiewicz, 930 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)