848 So. 2d 1046 - State v. VanBebber’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Section 921.0026 plainly states, “This section applies to any felony offense, except any capital felony, committed on or after October 1, 1998.” Because the mitigator in section 921.0026(2)© applies to any felony offense, except any capital felony, committed on or after October 1,1998, it is available to support a downward departure from a felony DUI conviction. The fact that the Legislature specifically exempted only capital felonies is further support for the conclusion that section 921.0026(2)© applies to felony DUI convictions.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kezal v. State · Bielik v. State

2. “This section applies to any felony offense, except any capital felony, committed on or after October 1, 1998. (1) A downward departure from the lowest permissible sentence, as calculated according to the total sentence points pursuant to s. 921.0024, is prohibited unless there are circumstances or factors that reasonably justify the downward departure. Mitigating factors to be considered include, but are not limited to, those listed in subsection (2). The imposition of a sentence below the lowest permissible sentence is subject to appellate review under chapter 924, but the extent of downward departure is not subject to appellate review. (2) Mitigating circumstances under which a departure from the lowest permissible sentence is reasonably justified include, but are not limited to: [[Image here]] (c) The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminal nature of the conduct or to conform that conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired. [[Image here]] (j) The offense was committed in an unsophisticated manner and was an isolated incident for which the defendant has shown remorse. [[Image here]] (3) The defendant’s substance abuse or addiction, including intoxication at the time of the offense, is not a mitigating factor under subsection (2) and does not, under any circumstances, justify a downivard departure from the permissible sentencing range.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kezal v. State

3. “Under subsection (3), intoxication at the time of the offense cannot be used as a mitigating factor to support a downward departure from a sentence under the sentencing guidelines. There is no prohibition, however, against using the miti-gator s listed in section 921.0026(2) in cases where the offense is intoxication. In this case the trial court imposed a downward departure on the fact that VanBebber was remorseful for an isolated incident committed in an unsophisticated manner. Again, if the Legislature intended to specifically exempt felony DUI offenses from this statutory scheme this Court must presume that it would have explicitly done so in the statute.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kezal v. State