Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

520 So. 2d 275

Docket No. 71247.

Brumley v. State

Ricky Thurman BRUMLEY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided February 25, 1988.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1988-02-25

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“In Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla. 1987), we held that a trial court must articulate all of the reasons for departure in the original order and cannot enunciate any new reasons for departure after reversal of the original sentence by an appellate court.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Patten v. State

Relies on 515 So. 2d 748 - Shull v. Dugger · 510 So. 2d 1182 - Hughes v. State · 512 So. 2d 220 - Brumley v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1988-02-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 2013

7 state decisions

501988199020002010decided

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 →

¶1*276 Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and A.E. Pooser, IV, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

¶3BARKETT, Justice.

¶4In Brumley v. State,512 So.2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), the First District certified a question of great public importance already posed in Morganti v. State,510 So.2d 1182, 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987):

Whether, when the sole reason initially given for departure from the Guidelines was held to be valid by appellate courts at the time of sentencing but is subsequently held invalid by the Supreme Court, the trial court may on remand again depart from the Guidelines, if the new reasons given existed at the time of the original sentencing and are valid reasons for departure.

¶5We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

¶6In Shull v. Dugger,515 So.2d 748 (Fla. 1987), we held that a trial court must articulate all of the reasons for departure in the original order and cannot enunciate any new reasons for departure after reversal of the original sentence by an appellate court.

¶7Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the negative, quash the decision of the district court, and remand with instructions that the trial court impose a guidelines sentence.

¶8It is so ordered.

¶9McDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

/520/so2d/275 · .json · Public domain