Mazza v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mazza v. State

499 So. 2d 30, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 120, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11070

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 17, 1986

DocketNo. 85-1763

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 499 So. 2d 30 (Mazza 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

Mazza v. State, 499 So. 2d 30, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 120, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11070 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

DANAHY, Chief Judge.

The defendant challenges his sentence for the offense of burglary. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment, a sentence which was in excess of the sentencing guideline recommendations. No written reasons for departure were given by the trial judge.

The state points out that the defendant was charged with being armed with a pistol during the commission of the burglary and, therefore, the trial judge was required to sentence the defendant to a three-year minimum term of imprisonment under section 775.087, Florida Statutes (1985). The transcript of the sentencing hearing reflects [31]*31that the trial judge clearly intended to impose a three-year minimum mandatory and so advised the defendant.

Accordingly, there is no error here. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(9) provides that where a recommended sentence is less than the mandatory sentence for an offense having a mandatory penalty, the mandatory sentence takes precedence. The trial judge was not required to enter a written statement setting forth clear and convincing reasons for the defendant’s sentence since the sentence was not a departure from that allowed by rule 3.701. Prentice v. State, 469 So.2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

However, we note that the written sentence does not specify that the three-year term is a mandatory minimum under section 775.087. Accordingly, we reverse with directions that the sentence be amended to reflect that the defendant’s sentence is a three-year mandatory minimum under section 775.087.

Reversed and remanded.

LEHAN and HALL, JJ., concur.

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

DANAHY, Chief Judge.

The defendant challenges his sentence for the offense of burglary. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment, a sentence which was in excess of the sentencing guideline recommendations. No written reasons for departure were given by the trial judge.

The state points out that the defendant was charged with being armed with a pistol during the commission of the burglary and, therefore, the trial judge was required to sentence the defendant to a three-year minimum term of imprisonment under section 775.087, Florida Statutes (1985). The transcript of the sentencing hearing reflects [31]*31that the trial judge clearly intended to impose a three-year minimum mandatory and so advised the defendant.

Accordingly, there is no error here. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(9) provides that where a recommended sentence is less than the mandatory sentence for an offense having a mandatory penalty, the mandatory sentence takes precedence. The trial judge was not required to enter a written statement setting forth clear and convincing reasons for the defendant’s sentence since the sentence was not a departure from that allowed by rule 3.701. Prentice v. State, 469 So.2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

However, we note that the written sentence does not specify that the three-year term is a mandatory minimum under section 775.087. Accordingly, we reverse with directions that the sentence be amended to reflect that the defendant’s sentence is a three-year mandatory minimum under section 775.087.

Reversed and remanded.

LEHAN and HALL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

499 So. 2d 30, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 120, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mazza-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack