STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD RICHARDVILLE, 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 circuit court's order granting a downward departure sentence, arguing the court's reasons—including the defendant's ignorance of the law—were legally insufficient. The appellate court found the trial court did err, but the State failed to preserve the error by raising only a step-two discretionary argument rather than a step-one legal sufficiency argument.
While the trial court erred in its legal basis for departure, the State did not preserve this error because it failed to raise a step-one legal sufficiency argument at the trial court level, instead raising only a step-two discretionary argument about whether departure should occur. The error does not constitute fundamental error.
[1] A trial court's decision to depart from a guidelines sentence involves a two-part process: first, determining if a valid legal ground and factual support exist for depart…
[2] A step 1 argument regarding the legal sufficiency of reasons for a downward departure sentence must be raised and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for appeal…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“First, the court must determine whether it can depart, i.e., whether there is a valid legal ground and adequate factual support for that ground in the case pending before it (step 1).... Second, where the step 1 requirements are met, the trial court further must determine whether it should depart, i.e., whether departure is indeed the best sentencing option for the defendant in the pending case.”
Establishes the two-step framework for determining downward departure sentences that governs the analysis.
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 received a downward departure sentence from the guideline range. The trial court provided reasons for this departure that the State chal…
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 the circuit court’s order granting the defendant’s motion for a downward departure sentence. The state argues that the court’s reasons for departing from the permitted sentencing range, including the defendant’s “ignorance of the law,” were legally insufficient.
We agree that the court erred, as the state has argued. However, the state did not preserve the error. As explained in Banks v. State, 732 So.2d 1065 (Fla. 1999), a court undergoes a two-part process in determining whether to depart from a guidelines sentence:
First, the court must determine whether it can depart, i.e., whether there is a valid legal ground and adequate factual support for that ground in the case pending before it (step 1)....
Second, where the step 1 requirements are met, the trial court further must determine whether it should depart, i.e., whether departure is indeed the best sentencing option for the defendant in the pending case. In making this determination (step 2), the court must weigh the totality of the circumstances in the case, including aggravating and mitigating factors. This second aspect of the decision to depart is a judgment call within the sound discretion of the court and will be sustained on review absent an abuse of discretion. ...
Id. at 1067-68 (internal footnotes omitted).
Here, although the state’s appeal argues that the court’s reasons for departing from the permitted sentencing range were legally insufficient (a step 1 argument), the state did not raise a step 1 *656argument to the court. Instead, the state raised only a step 2 argument to the court:
Your Honor, as you know, as [defense counsel] has pointed out, the standard in a downward departure motion is whether the judge can versus should. Yes, Your Honor, you can depart fi'om the guidelines, but should you? And the State’s position is that no, you should not..
(emphasis added).
Because the state raised only a step 2 argument to the court, the state did not preserve the step 1 error. See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2016) (“An appeal may not be taken from a judgment or order of a trial court unless a prejudicial error is alleged and is properly preserved or, if not properly preserved, would constitute fundamental error.... ”); § 924.051(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2016) (“‘Preserved’ means that an issue, legal argument, or objection to evidence was timely raised before, and ruled on by, the trial court, and that the issue, legal argument, or objection to evidence was sufficiently precise that it fairly apprised the trial court of the relief sought and the grounds therefor.”). The error here does not constitute fundamental error.
Based on the foregoing, we are compelled to affirm the defendant’s downward departure sentence.
Affirmed.
Taylor and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.