Chenard v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chenard v. State

486 So. 2d 689, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 895, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7320

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 15, 1986

DocketNo. 85-780

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 486 So. 2d 689 (Chenard v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chenard v. State, 486 So. 2d 689, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 895, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7320 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from two criminal sentences imposed below, totalling ten years imprisonment, which constitute a departure from the sentencing guidelines’ recommended sentence of three years imprisonment. Without dispute, no written statement was ever filed by the trial court articulating the reasons for the seven-year departure from the sentencing guidelines’ recommended sentence. Although the trial judge explained orally in open court his reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines, which at that time was permissible in this district, Tucker v. State, 464 So.2d 211, 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), the Florida Supreme Court has since held that such oral statements are insufficient and that a written statement by the trial court articulating the reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines is required under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(b)(6), (d)(ll). State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054, 1055-56 (Fla.1986). We specifically reject the state’s argument that Jackson should not be applied retroactively, reverse the sentences appealed from, and remand the cause to the trial court for resentencing in accord with the views expressed in this opinion. Of course, if the defendant feels aggrieved by the trial court’s written order, when entered upon remand, he may file a new appeal in this cause.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from two criminal sentences imposed below, totalling ten years imprisonment, which constitute a departure from the sentencing guidelines’ recommended sentence of three years imprisonment. Without dispute, no written statement was ever filed by the trial court articulating the reasons for the seven-year departure from the sentencing guidelines’ recommended sentence. Although the trial judge explained orally in open court his reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines, which at that time was permissible in this district, Tucker v. State, 464 So.2d 211, 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), the Florida Supreme Court has since held that such oral statements are insufficient and that a written statement by the trial court articulating the reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines is required under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(b)(6), (d)(ll). State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054, 1055-56 (Fla.1986). We specifically reject the state’s argument that Jackson should not be applied retroactively, reverse the sentences appealed from, and remand the cause to the trial court for resentencing in accord with the views expressed in this opinion. Of course, if the defendant feels aggrieved by the trial court’s written order, when entered upon remand, he may file a new appeal in this cause.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

486 So. 2d 689, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 895, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chenard-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack