STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DANIEL SIGMEN, 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 appeals a trial court's downward departure sentences imposed after the defendant's no contest plea. The appellate court reversed the sentences because the trial court failed to provide competent, substantial evidence supporting the downward departure, relying instead on an unsupported proportionality rationale.
The court held that the trial court's downward departure sentences were improper because the trial court failed to make factual findings supporting the stated ground of proportionality, and mere dissatisfaction with the guidelines is not a legally sufficient basis for departure.
[1] A trial court imposing a downward departure sentence must determine whether there is a factually supported, legal ground for departure and whether departure is the best s…
[2] Appellate review of departure sentences requires determining whether the grounds for departure were supported by competent, substantial evidence.
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“When imposing a downward departure sentence, the trial court must determine whether there is a factually supported, legal ground for departure and whether departure is the best sentencing option for the defendant.”
Establishes the legal standard for downward departure sentencing in Florida.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDaniel Sigmen entered a no contest plea to multiple counts across five cases. The sentencing guidelines scoresheet calculated a minimum sentence of 88…
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 the trial court’s imposition of downward departure sentences after Appellee’s straight-up no contest plea to multiple counts in five cases. While Appellee’s scoresheet resulted in a minimum guidelines sentence of 88.9 months’ imprisonment, the trial court sentenced Appellee to concurrent terms of three years’ imprisonment followed by five years’ probation. The State argues, and Appellee concedes, that the trial court’s reason for departure was not based on competent, substantial evidence. We agree, reverse, and remand for resentenc-ing.
When imposing a downward departure sentence, the trial court must determine whether there is a factually supported, legal ground for departure and whether departure is the best sentencing option for the defendant. State v. Adkison, 56 So.3d 880, 882 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). This Court reviews departure sentences to determine whether the grounds for departure were supported by competent, substantial evidence. Id. During the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated that it was entering the downward departure sentence based on proportionality. However, the trial court failed to make any factual findings to support this mitigating circumstance. It appears from the record before this Court that the trial court believed that the lowest minimum guideline sentence was too harsh for Appellee’s crimes. Mere dissatisfaction with the guidelines is not an appropriate legal ground for imposing a departure sentence. State v. Whiteside, 56 So.3d 799, 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). We, *1123therefore, REVERSE the sentences on appeal and REMAND for resentencing.
VAN NORTWICK, THOMAS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Bowman, 123 So. 3d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Adkison, 56 So. 3d 880 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- State v. Jayson Whiteside, 56 So. 3d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)