THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MELVIN GLENN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a downward departure sentence must be reversed when no reasons are offered for the departure, and the defendant is given the option to withdraw the plea or be resentenced within guidelines.
Defendant accepted a plea agreement for two cases, including a grand theft charge and a violation of probation, and was sentenced below the guidelines…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Downward Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a State appeal of a downward departure sentence. We reverse.
Defendant-appellee Melvin Glenn was on probation in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court case number 06-37680 (“the 2006 case”), for aggravated stalking and other offenses. He was charged in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court case number 07-19014 (“the 2007 case”) with grand theft of an automobile. The grand theft charge also provided the basis for an affidavit of violation of probation in the 2006 case.
Over State objection, the trial court offered, and the defendant accepted, a plea agreement whereby the defendant would plead guilty in both cases and the defendant would be sentenced to a term of 180 days in the county jail, with credit for time previously served. The State objected, among other things, that the sentence was below the guidelines minimum. No reasons were offered for the downward departure sentence. The trial court sentenced the defendant pursuant to the agreement. The State has appealed in the 2007 case only.
The State argues that the sentencing order must be reversed because there were no downward departure reasons. The defense concedes that the State’s position is well taken. See State v. Brownell, 922 So. 2d 244, 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); State v. Roberts, 824 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); State v. Paulk, 813 So. 2d 152, 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). We therefore reverse the sentencing order. On remand the defendant must be given the option of either withdrawing his plea or being resen-tenced within the sentencing guidelines. Franquiz v. State, 682 So. 2d 536, 538 (Fla.1996).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Franquiz v. State, 682 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1996)
- State v. Paulk, 813 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- State v. Roberts, 824 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- State v. Brownell, 922 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)