State v. Chestnut, 97-1094
| Decision Date | 11 September 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-1094,97-1094 |
| Citation | 718 So.2d 312 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2113 STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Antonio Dewayne CHESTNUT, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kelli R. Orndorff, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Rosemarie Farrell, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
Antonio Chestnut and several others were "beating up on a cab driver" outside a convenience store when Roger Hicks pulled up in his truck delivering milk. Chestnut grabbed Hicks and asked if he "wanted some of that, too." Hicks told the group to stay away from his truck and went on with his delivery. After the delivery was completed, Hicks proceeded to his next stop. As Hicks was pulling away from this delivery, an object hit the front windshield of his truck shattering the glass. Hicks stopped the truck and Chestnut reached through the driver's open window with a "razor knife" slashing Hicks on the shoulder and warned him that he had better "not let them know what happened over at the Handy Way." Hicks pulled away, returned to the Handy Way where the police were investigating the earlier incident, and reported Chestnut's attack on him.
Chestnut was convicted of burglary while armed with a dangerous weapon and aggravated battery. The judge, over the State's objection, chose not to enter a guideline sentence and departed downward. He withheld adjudication, placed Chestnut on concurrent two year periods of probation, and ordered that Chestnut serve 180 days in the county jail with credit for the 122 days previously served. The judge's reasons for departing were:
1. The offense was committed in an unsophisticated manner and was an isolated incident for which the defendant has shown remorse.
2. The defendant poses little or no threat to society.
3. The defendant is a young man with a minimal record and excellent prospects for rehabilitation.
4. The defendant has strong family support.
5. The long term consequences of a prison sentence in this case.
The State appeals the downward departure and we reverse finding either that the record does not support these reasons for departure or that the reasons themselves are insufficient as a matter of law.
We agree that the first stated reason, the only statutory reason relied on by the court, is not supported by the record. We are not as certain as the trial judge that smashing the windshield of a truck in order to stop it so that the driver can be assaulted is an unsophisticated manner of doing so. Nor, based on the testimony of Mr. Hicks that the incident arose from his witnessing the altercation at the Handy Way, do we find the offenses to be isolated. We are certain that Chestnut's denial of doing "what I was accused of" is not the kind of remorse contemplated by the legislature. The fact that Chestnut is sorry that Hicks was injured by another is sympathy and not remorse. 1
The court's nonstatutory reasons for downward departure require that we consider the nature of the reasons given in light of the stated legislative sentencing policy. To begin with, the legislature is serious about sentencing. "A downward departure from the permissible sentence is discouraged unless there are circumstances or factors that reasonably justify the downward departure." Section 921.0026(1), Florida Statutes. The mitigating factors specifically listed by the legislature focus on the nature of the crime, the conduct of the defendant or the mental capacity, condition, or attitude of the defendant. Further, the first purpose of sentencing is to punish, not rehabilitate. Finally, the legislative sentencing policy is to ensure that violent criminals are incarcerated.
Do the nonstatutory reasons for downward departure given by the court herein "reasonably justify" the court's decision to put rehabilitation before punishment in electing not to incarcerate (for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. State
...not rehabilitate. Finally, the legislative sentencing policy is to ensure that violent criminals are incarcerated." State v. Chestnut , 718 So.2d 312, 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). None of the non-statutory mitigating factors relied on by the trial court were legally permissible to sustain a dep......
-
State v. Thompkins
...than smashing the windshield of a truck in order to stop the vehicle so the defendant could assault the occupant, see State v. Chestnut, 718 So.2d 312 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), or peddling (pun intended) drugs on a bicycle to an undercover police officer, see State v. Deleon, 867 So.2d 636 (Fla.......
-
State v. Cosby
...115 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) ; then citing Rafferty v. State, 799 So. 2d 243, 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) ; and then citing State v. Chestnut, 718 So. 2d 312, 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) ))."In the absence of either written or oral findings, however, a downward departure sentence is improper." Carlson, 9......
-
State v. Platt
...coveted a particular item, broke into the victim's property and made a "surgical strike," taking only that item); State v. Chestnut, 718 So.2d 312, 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (finding manner in which crime was committed was not unsophisticated where the defendant threw an object at the windshi......