Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

476 So. 2d 161

476 So.2d 161

10 Fla.L.Weekly 463

Docket No. 66257.

State v. Young

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Brian Anthony YOUNG, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided August 29, 1985.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1985-08-29

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“When a departure sentence is grounded on both permissible and impermissible reasons, the sentence should be reversed and the case remanded for resentencing unless the state is able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of the impermissible reason(s) would not have affected the departure sentence.”

quoted by 8 later decisions, including 479 So. 2d 739 - Griffin v. State, 476 So. 2d 165 - State v. Carney

“WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT FINDS THAT A SENTENCING COURT HAS RELIED ON ONE OR MORE IMPERMISSIBLE REASONS FOR DEPARTING FROM THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, AND HAS ALSO RELIED ON ONE OR MORE PERMISSIBLE REASONS, MAY THE APPELLATE COURT APPLY THE HARMLESS ERROR RULE AND AFFIRM THE SENTENCE?”

quoted by 7 later decisions, including 479 So. 2d 739 - Griffin v. State, 478 So. 2d 1071 - Von Carter v. State

Relies on 476 So. 2d 158 - Albritton v. State · 455 So. 2d 551 - Young v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1985-08-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably 482 So. 2d 346 - Wade v. State (1986), 476 So. 2d 165 - State v. Carney (1985)

41 state decisions

3901985199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Gregory G. Costas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for petitioner.

¶2Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and Kenneth L. Hosford, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for respondent.

¶3SHAW, Justice.

¶4This cause is before us based on a certified question of great public importance:

WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT FINDS THAT A SENTENCING COURT RELIED UPON A REASON OR REASONS THAT ARE IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER FLA.R.CR.P. 3.701 IN MAKING ITS DECISION TO DEPART FROM THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, SHOULD THE APPELLATE COURT EXAMINE THE OTHER REASONS GIVEN BY THE SENTENCING COURT TO DETERMINE IF THOSE REASONS JUSTIFY DEPARTURE FROM THE GUIDELINES OR SHOULD THE CASE BE REMANDED FOR A RESENTENCING.

¶5Young v. State,455 So.2d 551, 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

¶6In Albritton v. State,476 So.2d 158 (Fla. 1985), we recently addressed the broad question of appellate review of departures from sentencing guidelines. Our discussion there subsumes the specific question here. When a departure sentence is grounded on both permissible and impermissible reasons, the sentence should be reversed and the case remanded for resentencing unless the state is able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence *162 of the impermissible reason(s) would not have affected the departure sentence.

¶7It is clear that the district court here was unable to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the impermissible reasons did not affect the departure sentence. We approve the decision reversing the sentence and remanding the case for resentencing.

¶8It is so ordered.

¶9BOYD, C.J., and OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.

¶10ADKINS, J., concurs in result only.

/476/so2d/161 · .json · Public domain