Home/Supreme Court of Florida/State v. Boynton

State v. Boynton

478 So. 2d 351, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 592
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedNovember 7, 1985
Docket66971
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 478 So. 2d 351 (State v. Boynton) 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
State v. Boynton, 478 So. 2d 351, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 592 (Fla. 1985).

Opinion

478 So.2d 351 (1985)

STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Daniel BOYNTON, Respondent.

No. 66971.

Supreme Court of Florida.

November 7, 1985.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Lee Rosenthall, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Gary Caldwell, Asst. Public Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, for respondent.

OVERTON, Justice.

This is a petition to review Boynton v. State, 473 So.2d 703 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), an en banc decision in which the district court reversed a trial court sentencing judgment for failure to set forth written reasons for its departure from the sentencing guidelines, and certified the following question as one of great public importance:

Does an oral pronouncement in the record of the reasons for departing from a presumptive sentence comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(11) requiring that "[a]ny sentence outside of the guidelines must be accompanied by a written statement delineating the reasons for the departure," and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(b)(6) requiring that "departures from the presumptive sentences established in the guidelines shall be articulated in writing"?

Id. at 708. We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, and we answer the question in the negative.

In our recent decision of State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 1985), we expressly adopted the district court's reasoning in its Boynton decision to require written reasons for departure from the sentencing guidelines. Accordingly, we approve the decision of the district court.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Pease v. State
712 So. 2d 374 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1997)
Taccariello v. State
692 So. 2d 231 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Franquiz v. State
682 So. 2d 536 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1996)
Jacques v. Jacques
609 So. 2d 74 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
State v. Salley
601 So. 2d 309 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Ridgeway v. State
543 So. 2d 339 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Torres-Arboledo v. State
524 So. 2d 403 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1988)
Nichols v. State
521 So. 2d 372 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Rowan v. State
518 So. 2d 473 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Hardy v. State
507 So. 2d 682 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
State v. Pentaude
500 So. 2d 526 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1987)
Tisdale v. State
498 So. 2d 1280 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
State v. Govan
494 So. 2d 302 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
State v. Hill
492 So. 2d 1072 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1986)
Bourgault v. State
491 So. 2d 623 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Brunson v. State
489 So. 2d 1159 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Ballard v. State
501 So. 2d 1285 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
White v. State
489 So. 2d 115 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Amoroso v. State
487 So. 2d 415 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
State v. Daughtry
487 So. 2d 1184 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
478 So. 2d 351, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-boynton-fla-1985.