State v. White

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. White

693 So. 2d 54, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3148, 1997 WL 149406

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 2, 1997

DocketNo. 96-0796

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 693 So. 2d 54 (State v. White) 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. White, 693 So. 2d 54, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3148, 1997 WL 149406 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State appeals a downward departure sentence imposed by the trial court. Since [55]*55the trial court sentenced Appellee, Theodis White, to a downward departure sentence without providing written reasons for the departure, we reverse.

Appellee pled guilty to burglary of a structure. The trial court found that Appellee was a habitual offender, yet sentenced him to ten years’ probation with a special condition to satisfactorily complete the drug farm program. The trial judge did not provide written reasons for the downward departure, even though this was a downward departure from the recommended sentence of 47.6 months in prison.

The Florida Supreme Court has held that a trial judge may impose a sentence upon a habitual offender that is more lenient than the one provided by the habitual offender statute. Geohagen v. State, 639 So.2d 611, 612 (Fla.1994). However, in imposing a more lenient sentence, the trial judge “must still adhere to the sentencing guidelines and must state appropriate reasons for any downward departure from the guidelines.” State v. Rinkins 646 So.2d 727, 729 (Fla.1994). Reversal is warranted where the trial judge fails to provide such reasons for departure. See id.; Geohagen, 639 So.2d at 612.

In the instant case, no written reasons were given for imposing Appellee’s downward departure sentence. Thus, under Geo-hagen and Rinkins, we reverse Appellee’s sentence. Since the trial judge knew he was departing from the guidelines but failed to provide reasons for the departure, we remand to the trial court for resentencing within the guidelines. See Nelson v. State, 674 So.2d 888, 889 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); State v. Tavolaccio, 657 So.2d 1226, 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GUNTHER, C.J., and FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The State appeals a downward departure sentence imposed by the trial court. Since [55]*55the trial court sentenced Appellee, Theodis White, to a downward departure sentence without providing written reasons for the departure, we reverse.

Appellee pled guilty to burglary of a structure. The trial court found that Appellee was a habitual offender, yet sentenced him to ten years’ probation with a special condition to satisfactorily complete the drug farm program. The trial judge did not provide written reasons for the downward departure, even though this was a downward departure from the recommended sentence of 47.6 months in prison.

The Florida Supreme Court has held that a trial judge may impose a sentence upon a habitual offender that is more lenient than the one provided by the habitual offender statute. Geohagen v. State, 639 So.2d 611, 612 (Fla.1994). However, in imposing a more lenient sentence, the trial judge “must still adhere to the sentencing guidelines and must state appropriate reasons for any downward departure from the guidelines.” State v. Rinkins 646 So.2d 727, 729 (Fla.1994). Reversal is warranted where the trial judge fails to provide such reasons for departure. See id.; Geohagen, 639 So.2d at 612.

In the instant case, no written reasons were given for imposing Appellee’s downward departure sentence. Thus, under Geo-hagen and Rinkins, we reverse Appellee’s sentence. Since the trial judge knew he was departing from the guidelines but failed to provide reasons for the departure, we remand to the trial court for resentencing within the guidelines. See Nelson v. State, 674 So.2d 888, 889 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); State v. Tavolaccio, 657 So.2d 1226, 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GUNTHER, C.J., and FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

693 So. 2d 54, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3148, 1997 WL 149406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-white-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack