THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MILTON NOBLE, 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 of Florida appealed a downward departure sentence imposed by the trial court, arguing the court failed to provide written reasons or a valid oral recitation of reasons as required by Florida Statute 921.00265. The Third District Court of Appeal agreed and reversed, holding that the trial court's failure to provide adequate written or oral reasons for the departure violated sentencing requirements regardless of the State's withdrawal from plea negotiations.
The court held that the trial court's failure to comply with section 921.00265's requirement for written or valid oral reasons for a downward departure cannot be excused by the State's withdrawal from plea negotiations. The State's action does not release the trial court from the statutory requirements for justifying sentencing departures.
[1] A trial court must provide written reasons or a written transcript of orally stated reasons for a downward departure sentence, as required by statute.
[2] A trial court's failure to provide the requisite written reasons for a downward departure sentence requires reversal and remand.
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“The trial court failed to provide written reasons or a written transcript of orally stated reasons, as required by section 921.00265, Florida Statutes (2006). We agree and reverse and remand to permit the defendant to withdraw his plea, or for resentencing either in accordance with the sentencing guidelines (or, if below the guidelines, with the requisite findings).”
Establishes the core holding that the trial court violated the statutory requirement and the remedy available on remand.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt a violation hearing, the State offered the defendant a below-guidelines plea and sentence of ten years as a habitual offender. When the trial court…
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 Plea Negotiations cases and more on FLexlaw
SALTER, J.
On consideration of the defendant’s motion for clarification and motion for rehearing, the Court grants the motions, withdraws the opinion issued on September 3, 2008, and substitutes the following in its stead.
The State of Florida appeals the imposition of a downward departure sentence on the ground the trial court failed to provide written reasons or a written transcript of orally stated reasons, as required by section 921.00265, Florida Statutes (2006). We agree and reverse and remand to permit the defendant to withdraw his plea, or for resentencing either in accordance with the sentencing guidelines (or, if below the guidelines, with the requisite findings). See Brown v. State, 687 So. 2d 1300 (Fla.1997).
At the onset of the violation hearing, the State offered the defendant a below-guidelines plea and sentence of ten years as a habitual offender. When the trial court indicated it was inclined to offer the defendant an even lower sentence, the State objected and withdrew from plea negotiations. The trial court then accepted a guilty plea from the defendant and sen tenced him to five years as a habitual offender. No written or valid oral recitation of reasons was given for the departure.
The defendant argues that the State’s action releases the trial court from the strictures of section 921.00265, invoking State v. Aguilar, 775 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Otherwise, argues the defendant, “Anytime the State offered a below-guidelines sentence and the court offered a lower sentence, the State would be able to withdraw based on its objection that the departure was now too low.” As defense counsel necessarily and honorably conceded at oral argument, however, this argument has been precluded by our recent decision in State v. Berry, 976 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008),1 a case which is factually indistinguishable from ours.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
. Defendant's answer brief was filed before our opinion in Berry issued.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Rosario Aguilar, 775 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- State v. Laffayette Berry, 976 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Brown v. State, 687 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 1997)