Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

483 So. 2d 404

483 So.2d 404

10 Fla.L.Weekly 624

Docket No. 66091.

Burke v. State

Charles BURKE, Jr., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided December 5, 1985.

Rehearing Denied March 12, 1986.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1985-12-05

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 1997

10 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“prior conviction, and (3) the court's belief that the defendant lied to officials from the Department of Corrections. The court sentenced the appellant to thirty months in prison and thirty months probation. Evrard appeals from the sentence imposed by the trial court. The trial court failed to justify its departure from the sentencing guidelines by clear and convincing reasons as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(11). The use of a”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 502 So. 2d 3 - Evrard v. State

Relies on 475 So. 2d 1218 - Hendrix v. State · 478 So. 2d 1054 - State v. Jackson · 469 So. 2d 128 - Weems v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1985-12-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Lucinda H. Young, Asst. Public Defender, *405 Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, for petitioner.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Sean Daly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for respondent.

¶3ADKINS, Justice.

¶4We have for review Burke v. State, 456 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), which is certified to us as being in conflict with Harvey v. State, 450 So.2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, and quash the decision of the district court.

¶5We have before us a sentencing guideline case in which the trial court departed from the guidelines without providing a written statement delineating the reasons for the departure. Instead, the trial court dictated its reasons for departure into the record.

¶6In State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 1985), we held that a departure sentence must be accompanied by a written statement delineating the reasons for departure. (Emphasis supplied.) See Fla.R. Crim.Pro. 3.701(d)(11); Hendrix v. State, 475 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 1985). Therefore, the dictation of reasons for departure into the record does not meet the explicit requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(11).

¶7The trial court's reasons for departure are unclear due to the fact that they were verbally articulated. We will assume, as did the Fifth District Court of Appeal, that the trial court deviated from the guidelines on the basis of Burke's prior juvenile record, part of which includes dispositions which are more than three years old.

¶8Burke argues that the trial court is precluded from departing from the guidelines on the basis of juvenile dispositions which are more than three years old because such juvenile dispositions cannot be used in the initial computation of the recommended sentence. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(5)(c).

¶9We have previously addressed this issue in Weems v. State, 469 So.2d 128 (Fla. 1985). In Weems, we held that juvenile dispositions that are the equivalent of convictions had the defendant been an adult when they were committed, may support a deviation from the guidelines despite the fact that the act occurred more than three years ago. We further held that a judge cannot deviate from the guidelines on the basis of prior arrests when there has been no finding of guilt. Id. at 130.

¶10Accordingly, we quash the decision of the district court and direct the district court to remand to the trial court for sentencing consistent with our decision.

¶11It is so ordered.

¶12BOYD, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.

/483/so2d/404 · .json · Public domain