Eckard v. State

816 So. 2d 771, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6358, 2002 WL 939760
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 10, 2002
DocketNo. 5D00-2381
StatusPublished

This text of 816 So. 2d 771 (Eckard 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
Eckard v. State, 816 So. 2d 771, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6358, 2002 WL 939760 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

PALMER, J.

Jay Eckard appeals his sentence which was entered by the trial court upon remand from this court.1 We reverse.

Eckard was found guilty of committing the crime of vehicular homicide, in violation of section 782.071 of the Florida Statutes (1997). The applicable statutory maximum for this offense is 60 months imprisonment. See § 775.082(3)(d), Fla. Stat.(1997). Eckard’s recommended sentencing guidelines range was between a minimum term of 111 months and a maximum term of 185 months incarceration. At the re-sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Eckard to a term of 84 months incarceration followed by 100 months probation. Defense counsel immediately objected since the sentence was a downward departure sentence which exceeded the 60 month statutory maximum. See § 921.001(5), Fla. Stat. (1997).2 Upon consideration of defense counsel’s objection, the trial court ruled that the sentence would stand as ordered and further stated on the record that the imposition of a downward departure sentence was warranted because mitigating circumstances existed at the time of Eckard’s initial sentencing; namely, the unsophisticated manner in which the offense was committed and an isolated incident for which Eckard had shown remorse.

Eckard argues that his sentence is illegal under section 921.001(5) of the Florida Statutes (1997). We agree. As the Second District held in Nunez v. State, 721 So.2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) when presented with a virtually identical factual scenario, a departure sentence must be within any relevant maximum sentence [773]*773limitations provided in section 775.082. Therefore, in deciding to impose a downward departure sentence, the trial court was required to sentence Eckard within the 60 month maximum provided by statute.

Accordingly, we reverse Eckard’s sentence and remand with instructions that the trial court impose a sentence within the statutory maximum.

Sentence REVERSED and case REMANDED.

GRIFFIN and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Nunez v. State
721 So. 2d 346 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Eckard v. State
758 So. 2d 742 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
816 So. 2d 771, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6358, 2002 WL 939760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eckard-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.