State v. Weaver

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Weaver

662 So. 2d 1019, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12103, 1995 WL 680449

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 17, 1995

DocketNo. 95-0780

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 662 So. 2d 1019 (State v. Weaver) 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. Weaver, 662 So. 2d 1019, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12103, 1995 WL 680449 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ANTOON, Judge.

The state appeals the defendant’s sentence which was imposed for the offenses of forgery,¹ and fraudulent use of a credit card.² Specifically, the state contends that the defendant’s sentence is an improper downward departure from the guidelines because no contemporaneous written reasons were provided by the trial court to support the departure. We agree and, therefore, reverse.

As a result of having violated his probation, the defendant appeared before the trial court for sentencing. The scoresheet reflected a recommended sentencing range of five-and-one-half to seven years incarceration, and a permitted sentencing range of four-and-one-half to twelve years incarceration. The trial court departed from these [1020]*1020guidelines, sentencing the defendant to ninety-nine days in the Orange County jail followed by three years’ probation. In so doing, the trial court failed to provide a written statement setting forth the reasons for the downward departure as required by rule 3.701(d)(ll), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Failure to provide written reasons for departure requires reversal. Gordon v. State, 649 So.2d 326, 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Therefore, the defendant’s sentence must be vacated, and this matter remanded for imposition of a guideline sentence. See Pope v. State, 561 So.2d 554 (Fla.1990).

Judgment AFFIRMED, Sentence VACATED; cause REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

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

ANTOON, Judge.

The state appeals the defendant’s sentence which was imposed for the offenses of forgery,¹ and fraudulent use of a credit card.² Specifically, the state contends that the defendant’s sentence is an improper downward departure from the guidelines because no contemporaneous written reasons were provided by the trial court to support the departure. We agree and, therefore, reverse.

As a result of having violated his probation, the defendant appeared before the trial court for sentencing. The scoresheet reflected a recommended sentencing range of five-and-one-half to seven years incarceration, and a permitted sentencing range of four-and-one-half to twelve years incarceration. The trial court departed from these [1020]*1020guidelines, sentencing the defendant to ninety-nine days in the Orange County jail followed by three years’ probation. In so doing, the trial court failed to provide a written statement setting forth the reasons for the downward departure as required by rule 3.701(d)(ll), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Failure to provide written reasons for departure requires reversal. Gordon v. State, 649 So.2d 326, 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Therefore, the defendant’s sentence must be vacated, and this matter remanded for imposition of a guideline sentence. See Pope v. State, 561 So.2d 554 (Fla.1990).

Judgment AFFIRMED, Sentence VACATED; cause REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

662 So. 2d 1019, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12103, 1995 WL 680449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-weaver-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack