Brinson v. State
| Decision Date | 30 August 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 66624,66624 |
| Citation | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 480,476 So.2d 162 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 480 James Arthur BRINSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal--Certified Great Public Importance
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Michael E. Raiden, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Peggy A. Quince, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.
This is a petition to review Brinson v. State, 463 So.2d 564, 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), in which the district court certified the following as a question of great public importance:
When an appellate court finds that a sentencing court relied upon a reason or reasons that are impermissible under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 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 a departure from the guidelines or should the case be remanded for a resentencing?
We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution. We recently answered the identical question in State v. Young, 476 So.2d 161 (Fla.1985): "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." At 161. See also Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985).
In the present case the district court affirmed the trial court despite finding two "questionable" reasons for departure among seven. We cannot determine the standard applied and therefore quash the decision and remand to the district court for reconsideration in light of Young.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. State
...ground to deviate if supported by the record. Accord Brinson v. State, 463 So.2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA) quashed on other grounds, 476 So.2d 162 (Fla.1985). In Staten v. State, 500 So.2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), the defendant was convicted for a shooting incident to a robbery. The court concluded ......
- Nixon v. State, BC-196
-
Vandeneynden v. State, 85-418
...beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of impermissible reasons would not have affected the departure sentence. See Brinson v. State, 476 So.2d 162 (Fla.1985); Brooks v. State, 476 So.2d 163 (Fla.1985); State v. Carney, 476 So.2d 165 (Fla.1985); State v. Young, 476 So.2d 161 (Fla.1985);......
-
Agatone v. State
...this question previously in Griffin v. State, 479 So.2d 739 (Fla.1985), State v. Young, 476 So.2d 161 (Fla.1985), and Brinson v. State, 476 So.2d 162 (Fla.1985) in which we held that when a departure sentence is based on both permissible and impermissible reasons, "the sentence should be re......