STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DUSTIN CHESTER KOLODZ, 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 court held that a downward departure sentence requires written reasons, and the trial court erred by imposing one without them.
The defendant pled guilty and was sentenced to a term below the Criminal Punishment Code recommendation. The trial court explicitly rejected statutory…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
We agree with the state that the court erred in imposing a downward departure sentence without providing written reasons as required by section 921.00265(2), Florida Statutes (2010), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.704(d)(27)(A). We reverse and remand for resentencing.
Kolodz pled guilty to violation of probation and a new offense. At his sentencing, he presented two statutory grounds for a downward departure sentence. The trial court explicitly rejected both grounds. The Criminal Punishment Code (“CPC”) called for a minimum sentence of 46.5 months. For some inexplicable reason, the trial court sentenced Kolodz to 42 months. The court did not provide oral or written reasons for the departure.
Upon pronouncing the sentence, the trial court inquired as to any objections. The following colloquy occurred:
Assistant State Attorney: Yes, Your Honor. You stated that you did not want to depart and that there wasn’t a basis. The State provided a score sheet where he scores 46.5 months.
The Court: Right.
Assistant State Attorney: I thought you said ...
The Court: Well, appeal me for a four month downward sentence, go right ahead.
We are at a loss as to why the court would invite a needless appeal rather than simply provide valid written reasons for a departure or impose a sentence within the CPC.
Contrary to the state’s contention, the trial court is not limited to a sentence ■within the CPC upon remand. The court may depart downward again if it has valid written reasons to do so. See Jackson v. State, 64 So.3d 90 (Fla.2011). Otherwise, the court must impose a sentence within the CPC.
We do not address the state’s second point on appeal, which is rendered moot by our decision.
Reversed and Remanded.
MAY, C.J., and DAMOORGIAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. McKINLEY, 109 So. 3d 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…udes the trial court from imposing a downward departure sentence on remand if the court provides valid written reasons for the departure, and if those reasons are supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. See, e.g., State v. Kolodz, 79 So. 3d 117, 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (reversing departure sentence where trial court, over the state’s objection, did not provide oral or written reasons for the departure, but stating that on remand the trial court “may depart downward again if it has valid wr…
Authorities Cited
- Jackson v. State, 64 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 2011)