Desantis v. State

• Decision Date: 21 March 2018
• Docket Number: No. 4D16–4260,4D16–4260
• Citation: 240 So.3d 751
• Parties: Julian Brook DESANTIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

240 So.3d 751

Julian Brook DESANTIS, Appellant,

v.STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D16–4260

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 21, 2018]

Gregory Salnick of Law Offices of Salnick & Fuchs, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

May, J.

This appeal arises from a tragic accident resulting in the defendant's conviction and sentence for manslaughter, improper exhibition of a firearm, and possession of a firearm by a minor. He argues the trial court made multiple errors in admitting evidence, instructing the jury, and sentencing the defendant. We agree with him only on the sentencing issue. We reverse and remand the case for resentencing before a different judge.

Law enforcement responded to the defendant's 911 call claiming a shooting had occurred. When the officers arrived, the victim was deceased. The defendant, who was 17 at the time, ultimately admitted that he accidentally shot the victim.

At the police station, the defendant told the police that he and his friends were at his apartment playing with a 9mm handgun when he accidentally shot his friend. He confirmed that they had been drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana. He appeared visibly shocked and shaken.

The State charged the defendant by amended information with manslaughter with a firearm, aggravated assault with a firearm, and possession of a firearm by a minor. Prior to trial, the defendant moved for the court to consider sentencing him as a juvenile; the trial court denied the motion.

The jury found the defendant guilty of manslaughter, possession of a firearm by a minor, and the lesser included offense of improper exhibition of a dangerous weapon. The defendant then moved for a downward departure. The State asked for 20 years in prison.

The trial court found there were reasons to depart from the guidelines, but chose not to exercise its discretion in departing. The court stated that a 20–year sentence was inappropriate as well. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 124.8 months in accordance with the sentencing guidelines.

On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court fundamentally erred in failing to consider a youthful offender sentence based on its stated policy of not imposing youthful offender sanctions in death cases. The State responds that the trial court properly considered the facts and exercised its discretion in imposing an appropriate sentence.

We apply a mixed two-part review when analyzing a downward departure sentence. Kovalsky v. State , 220 So.3d 1192, 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). In the first step, the trial court must determine whether it can depart, i.e., whether there is a valid legal ground and adequate factual support for that ground in the case pending before it. Id. In reviewing the first step, we must determine whether competent substantial evidence supports the trial court's ruling. Id.

In the second step, the trial court must decide whether to depart, i.e., whether departure is indeed the best sentencing option. Id. This requires the trial court to weigh the totality of the circumstances, including aggravating and mitigating factors. Id. We review this decision for an abuse of discretion, which occurs where no reasonable person would agree with the trial court's decision. Id. at 1194–95.

Here, the defendant moved for a downward departure, and requested a youthful offender sentence. He argued that he suffered from a depressive disorder

and has dependent, antisocial, and self-defeating personality traits. He argued the court should downwardly depart based upon his cooperation with law enforcement. He was seventeen at the time of the incident, and it was isolated and committed in an unsophisticated manner.

Though the State and trial court agreed there was a legal basis for departure based on the defendant's remorse and the crime being unsophisticated and isolated, it chose not to depart. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 124.8 months in accordance with the sentencing guidelines. In doing so, the trial court stated:

This is criminal conduct because the law defines culpable negligence as criminal conduct. It's not a justifiable killing and therefore it is criminal. But it is a very, very difficult type of case to deal with.

But that's my job and that's what I'm going to do at this time. I have told you from the beginning, the loss of a life, the taking of a life, I do not view as a youthful offender sentence. I do believe that [the defendant] is remorseful. I believe that and I believe that if he could do anything to prevent what has now happened, if he could go back in time, he would. But there are consequences to taking a life, and those consequences do not involve a youthful offender sentence.

On the other hand I do have to take into account his age, his immaturity, and those types of factors, including those things that I've heard from everybody here in passing sentence.

Candidly, I believe this is a case where probably the guidelines got it right. I do not believe it's a twenty year sentence. I do not believe it's a six year sentence. I believe the guidelines are the appropriate sentence

...