Venter v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Venter v. State

901 So. 2d 898, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5472, 2005 WL 906165

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 20, 2005

DocketNo. 4D04-5

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 901 So. 2d 898 (Venter 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

Venter v. State, 901 So. 2d 898, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5472, 2005 WL 906165 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

WARNER, J.

Appellant challenges her sentence for the second degree murder of her four-year-old son, claiming that the court violated her due process rights in denying her motion to downward depart from the criminal punishment code minimum sentence. Her specific claim is not that the trial court did not give her the opportunity to be heard on the issue of downward departure, which it did, but that the court did not explain its reasoning in denying the motion. Due process includes the right to be heard. N.C. v. Anderson, 882 So.2d 990, 998 (Fla.2004). We know of no principle or case, nor has one been cited to us, which holds that due process includes the right of an express explanation on why a motion to downward depart was denied. We decline to recognize such a right.

As to appellant’s second issue, the issue of the constitutionality of the criminal punishment code has already been decided. See Peterson v. State, 775 So.2d 376, 378-79 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

Affirmed.

GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.

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

WARNER, J.

Appellant challenges her sentence for the second degree murder of her four-year-old son, claiming that the court violated her due process rights in denying her motion to downward depart from the criminal punishment code minimum sentence. Her specific claim is not that the trial court did not give her the opportunity to be heard on the issue of downward departure, which it did, but that the court did not explain its reasoning in denying the motion. Due process includes the right to be heard. N.C. v. Anderson, 882 So.2d 990, 998 (Fla.2004). We know of no principle or case, nor has one been cited to us, which holds that due process includes the right of an express explanation on why a motion to downward depart was denied. We decline to recognize such a right.

As to appellant’s second issue, the issue of the constitutionality of the criminal punishment code has already been decided. See Peterson v. State, 775 So.2d 376, 378-79 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

Affirmed.

GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

901 So. 2d 898, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5472, 2005 WL 906165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/venter-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack