State v. Silomon

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Silomon

557 So. 2d 105, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 685, 1990 WL 8644

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 6, 1990

DocketNo. 89-851

StatusPublished

This text of 557 So. 2d 105 (State v. Silomon) 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

State v. Silomon, 557 So. 2d 105, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 685, 1990 WL 8644 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We vacate the sentence under review due to the trial judge’s failure to state sufficient legal reasons within a written order for downward departure from the sentencing guidelines. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(b)(6). The trial court did note on the bottom of the guidelines scoresheet: “State was not ready; witness moved out of state; half a loaf better than none.” This last remark apparently referred to the trial judge’s observation that by releasing the defendant (who had already served six months) from jail, the prison population would be reduced by one. Had these reasons been contained in a written order, they would have been inappropriate per se.

Upon remand, the defendant may be permitted to withdraw his plea, e.g., State v. Davis, 464 So.2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), or in the alternative, he may plead guilty at which time the court may resentence him and make the appropriate written findings for any guidelines departure.

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

PER CURIAM.

We vacate the sentence under review due to the trial judge’s failure to state sufficient legal reasons within a written order for downward departure from the sentencing guidelines. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(b)(6). The trial court did note on the bottom of the guidelines scoresheet: “State was not ready; witness moved out of state; half a loaf better than none.” This last remark apparently referred to the trial judge’s observation that by releasing the defendant (who had already served six months) from jail, the prison population would be reduced by one. Had these reasons been contained in a written order, they would have been inappropriate per se.

Upon remand, the defendant may be permitted to withdraw his plea, e.g., State v. Davis, 464 So.2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), or in the alternative, he may plead guilty at which time the court may resentence him and make the appropriate written findings for any guidelines departure.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

557 So. 2d 105, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 685, 1990 WL 8644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-silomon-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack