Brooks v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Brooks v. State

476 So. 2d 163, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 479, 1985 Fla. LEXIS 3756

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedAugust 29, 1985

DocketNo. 66137

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 476 So. 2d 163 (Brooks v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brooks v. State, 476 So. 2d 163, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 479, 1985 Fla. LEXIS 3756 (Fla. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

SHAW, Justice.

These two decisions, both of which are reported as Brooks v. State, 456 So.2d 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), are before us based on a certified question of great public importance. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

The certified question is the same as that which we addressed in State v. Young, 476 So.2d 161 (Fla.1985), and State v. Carney, 476 So.2d 165 (Fla.1985). The district court below addressed the question of appellate review of departures from sentencing guidelines where a trial court relies on both permissible and impermissible reasons for the departure. Applying a harmless error analysis, the court concluded that “elimination of these impermissible reasons for deviation would have no effect upon the trial judge’s sentencing decision.” Brooks v. State, 456 So.2d at 1307. In so holding, the district court anticipated our own holding on the dispositive issue in Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985). We approve the decisions below.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SHAW, Justice.

These two decisions, both of which are reported as Brooks v. State, 456 So.2d 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), are before us based on a certified question of great public importance. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

The certified question is the same as that which we addressed in State v. Young, 476 So.2d 161 (Fla.1985), and State v. Carney, 476 So.2d 165 (Fla.1985). The district court below addressed the question of appellate review of departures from sentencing guidelines where a trial court relies on both permissible and impermissible reasons for the departure. Applying a harmless error analysis, the court concluded that “elimination of these impermissible reasons for deviation would have no effect upon the trial judge’s sentencing decision.” Brooks v. State, 456 So.2d at 1307. In so holding, the district court anticipated our own holding on the dispositive issue in Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985). We approve the decisions below.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 So. 2d 163, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 479, 1985 Fla. LEXIS 3756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-state-fla-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack