Mandri v. State
| Decision Date | 28 February 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. SC00-2162.,SC00-2162. |
| Citation | 813 So.2d 65 |
| Parties | Carlos MANDRI, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Lisa Walsh, Assistant Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, FL, for Petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Michael J. Neimand, Bureau Chief, and Paulette R. Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, Miami, FL, for Respondent.
We have for review Mandri v. State, 767 So.2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), reh'g denied and question certified, 767 So.2d at 524, in which the Third District certified the following question as one of great public importance:
WHERE A TRIAL COURT FAILS TO FILE WRITTEN REASONS IN SUPPORT OF A GUIDELINES DEPARTURE SENTENCE BUT, THEREAFTER, IN RESPONSE TO A FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.800(B) MOTION FILED BY DEFENDANT, DOES FILE WRITTEN REASONS JUSTIFYING THE DEPARTURE, IS DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A REVERSAL AND A REMAND FOR A GUIDELINES SENTENCE, UNDER MADDOX V. STATE, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000)?
Mandri, 767 So.2d at 524. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
In Weiss v. State, 761 So.2d 318, 319 (Fla.2000), we approved the application of the harmless error doctrine to nonfundamental sentencing error. See also Matchett v. State, 791 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 2001)
. In the case before us, the trial court did not commit fundamental error, as the petitioner was not prejudiced in his ability to challenge the trial court's reasons for imposing the departure sentence on direct appeal. See Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89, 108 (Fla.2000). Thus, the trial court's errors in filing the written reasons for departure were subject to harmless error analysis. See Weiss, 761 So.2d at 319. We therefore approve the Third District's decision and answer the certified question in the negative.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Esquivel v. State, 3D06-1200.
...(Fla.2001); Pressley v. State, 921 So.2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Butler v. State, 765 So.2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); with Mandri v. State, 813 So.2d 65 (Fla.2002); Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000); Beck v. State, 817 So.2d 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Weiss v. State, 720 So.2d 1113 (Fl......
-
Pressley v. State, 1D04-0890.
...without stating reasons for departure (or signing and filing the transcript). This failure distinguishes the case from Mandri v. State, 813 So.2d 65, 66 (Fla.2002), and brings it under Butler v. State, 765 So.2d 274, 275 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Accordingly, here, as in Butler, we reverse and r......
-
Pierre v. State
...of the original sentencing hearing, stating that the signed transcript would stand as the departure order) (citing Mandri v. State, 813 So.2d 65 (Fla.2002)). As to his second claim, Pierre relies on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and Apprendi v.......
-
Leeks v. State
...judge's departure reasons, upheld the departure sentence. The Beck court cited to the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Mandri v. State, 813 So.2d 65 (Fla.2002), wherein the court held that the late filing of written departure reasons in response to the defendant's rule 3.800(b)(2) motion......