SHAHZAD NAZIR SAYED
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 trial court did not err in denying the appellant's request for a downward departure sentence, and the cost imposition in the judgment is valid.
[1] A trial court's denial of a request for a downward departure sentence in a criminal case is subject to appellate review for abuse of discretion.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShahzad Nazir Sayed entered a no contest plea to aggravated manslaughter of a child and received a sentence that included a cost imposition. Appellant…
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 Aggravated Manslaughter Of A Child cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2023-0826 Lower Tribunal No. 20-1910F _____________________________
SHAHZAD NAZIR SAYED, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County. Scott H. Cupp, Judge.
December 5, 2025
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Shahzad Nazir Sayed (“Appellant”), appeals his sentence entered following his no contest plea to one charge of aggravated manslaughter of a child.1 Appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying his request for a downward departure sentence, and that one of the cost impositions in the judgment for his sentence fails to cite to the applicable authority for the cost.
2
We determine that we have jurisdiction over Appellant’s appeal as it pertains to the denial of his request for a downward departure, Caviness v. State, No. 23- 3661, 2025 WL 2737847, at *1 (Fla. 6th DCA Sept. 26, 2025), but we find no error in the trial court’s denial of the request. Therefore, we affirm on that issue. As to the cost imposition, we affirm on that issue for the reasons set forth in Kim v. State, No. 24-0197, 2025 WL 2884470, *1 (Fla. 6th DCA Oct. 10, 2025), and Spiro v. State, 418 So. 3d 316 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025). We also certify this decision to be in direct conflict with Dibelka v. State, 326 So. 3d 835 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), R.T.D. v. State, 679 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), and Williams v. State, 285 So. 3d 1003 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).
AFFIRMED. CONFLICT CERTIFIED.
SMITH, MIZE and GANNAM, JJ., concur.
Michael Ufferman, of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney general, Tallahassee, and Wendy Buffington, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Goree v. State, 679 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Dibelka v. State, 326 So. 3d 835 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)
- Spiro v. State, 418 So. 3d 316 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025)