STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
WILNERSON JULES, 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 imposed on Wilnerson Jules for attempted burglary, burglary tools possession, and criminal mischief. The court reversed because the trial court granted the departure based on the victim's need for restitution without competent evidence supporting that the restitution need outweighed the need for incarceration.
The trial court erred in granting a downward departure sentence because the defense presented no evidence that the need for restitution outweighed the need for a prison sentence. A downward departure under section 921.0026(2)(e) requires competent, substantial evidence that the victim's need for restitution outweighs the need for incarceration.
[1] A downward departure sentence based on the victim's need for restitution requires competent, substantial evidence that the need for restitution outweighs the need for a p…
[2] A trial court may not grant a downward departure sentence when there is no evidence of a pressing need for restitution or that such departure is required to ensure restit…
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's decision to mitigate a sentence under section 921.0026(2)(e) is reviewed for competent, substantial evidence that the victim's need for restitution outweighs the need for incarceration.”
Establishes the standard of review and evidentiary requirement for downward departure sentences based on restitution need
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter accepting a guilty plea, Jules was adjudicated guilty of attempted burglary of a structure, possession of burglary tools, and criminal mischief.…
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
The state appeals from a downward departure sentence imposed on appellee. We reverse because there was no evidence presented that the need for restitution outweighed the need for a prison sentence.
After accepting a plea, the trial court adjudicated appellee guilty of attempted *1139burglary of a structure, possession of burglary tools, and criminal mischief. During the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor represented that restitution was $100 to replace a broken window. Over the state’s objection, the court imposed a mitigated sentence under section 921.0026(2) (e), Florida Statutes, based on the court’s opinion that the victim’s need for restitution outweighed the need for a prison sentence.
A trial court’s decision to mitigate a sentence under section 921.0026(2)(e) is reviewed for competent, substantial evidence that the victim’s need for restitution outweighs the need for incarceration. Kirby v. State, 863 So.2d 238, 245 n. 10 (Fla.2003); Banks v. State, 732 So.2d 1065, 1067 (Fla.1999). A downward departure sentence may be justified “[i]f the harm suffered by the victim as a result of the [offense] was greater than normally expected, and restitution could mitigate that increased harm.” State v. Prasad, 889 So.2d 204, 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Reversal is warranted, however, “[w]here there is no evidence of a pressing need for restitution, or that a downward departure is required to ensure that restitution is in fact made.” State v. Schillaci, 767 So.2d 598, 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
The trial court erred in granting a downward departure sentence, as the defense presented no evidence that the need for restitution outweighed the need for a prison sentence. The owner of the business whose window was broken did not testify at the restitution hearing, and there was no testimony that the owner needed or even requested restitution. Additionally, there was no evidence regarding the amount of the loss, only the prosecutor’s unsworn, unverified statement. See Wright v. Emory, 41 So.3d 290, 292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (noting an attorney’s “un-sworn, unverified statements do not establish competent evidence”).
Accordingly, we reverse appellee’s sentence and remand for resentencing.
Reversed and remanded.
MAY, DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, 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. Schillaci, 767 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Kirby v. State, 863 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2003)
- Wright v. Leitha C. Emory and Larry J. Robinson, 41 So. 3d 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- State v. Taramati Prasad, 889 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)