THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LETTRICE JOHNSON, 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 State appealed Johnson's downward departure sentence, arguing the trial court failed to provide written reasons for the departure as required by law. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding that a trial court must provide written reasons when imposing a downward departure sentence.
The trial court reversibly erred by failing to provide written reasons for the downward departure sentence. No magic words are required to object to sentencing errors, and a general objection is sufficient when the basis clearly appears from context. A trial court must provide written reasons when imposing a downward departure sentence.
[1] A trial court must provide written reasons for imposing a downward departure sentence from the sentencing guidelines.
[2] An objection is sufficiently preserved for appeal if the articulated concern informs the court of the alleged error, even without specific magic words.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“First, no magic words are needed to make a proper objection.”
Establishes that strict procedural language is not required for objections in sentencing appeals.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson received a downward departure sentence from the guidelines. The trial court did not provide written reasons for the departure, nor did it file…
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 Written Reasons For Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
GERSTEN, C.J.
The State of Florida (“the State”) appeals Lettrice Johnson’s (“Johnson”) downward departure sentence. We reverse and remand.
The State asserts error in Johnson’s below-guidelines sentence because the trial court failed to supply written reasons for the downward departure. Johnson contends that the State did not sufficiently object to the downward departure, thus not preserving the issue for appeal. We agree with the State. First, no magic words are needed to make a proper objection. State v. Paulk, 813 So. 2d 152, 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). If an attorney’s articulated concern informs the court of the alleged error, then the issue is properly preserved for appeal. 813 So. 2d at 154. Further, a “general objection” is sufficient when the basis for that objection clearly appears from the context. State v. Roberts, 963 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).
Similarly, no magic words are necessary to require a trial court to follow the sentencing guidelines. Regardless, here, the sentencing guidelines scoresheet is part of the record. The trial court, however, aware of the guideline range, and the laws attendant to them, failed to give written reasons for the downward departure sentence or to file orally stated reasons within seven days after Johnson’s sentencing. See § 921.0016(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2006).
A trial court must impose a guideline sentence unless the evidence supports a valid reason for a departure sentence. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.701(d)(ll); see also Paulk, 813 So. 2d at 154. If the trial court imposes a downward departure sentence, then it must provide written reasons for the departure. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.701(d)(ll). Thus, we find that the trial court reversibly erred by failing to give written reasons justifying Johnson’s downward departure sentence.
Accordingly, Johnson’s sentence is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court to either allow Johnson to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial or be re-sentenced pursuant to the sentencing guidelines.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
LAGOA, J., concurs.
COPE, J.
(dissenting).
The point is not properly preserved for appellate review. Except where there is fundamental error (which this error is not), the argument on appeal must be “timely raised before, and ruled on by, the trial court, and ... the issue, legal argument, or objection to evidence ... sufficiently precise that it fairly apprised the trial court of the relief sought and the grounds therefor.” § 924.051(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006). The prosecutor never mentioned the sentencing guidelines. There is no mention of the scoresheet being shown to the judge. The judge did not sign the scoresheet. The claim of error is not preserved. The order now before us should be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Pacchiana, 289 So. 3d 857 (Fla. 2020)
-
State v. Ravann Weaver, 3 So. 3d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…under section 775.087(2)(a)1, Florida Statutes (2007). I agree that a “general objection” is sufficient when the basis for that objection clearly appears from the context. State v. Roberts, 963 So. 2d 747, 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); State v. Johnson, 990 So. 2d 1115, 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). From the transcript quoted above, the only objection that clearly appears from the context is that the State was complaining about the court giving Weaver credit for time served. I believe that the State’s general objection…
-
State v. Pearson, 47 So. 3d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…dication. Moreover, the record reflects that the State subsequently renewed the objection and directed the trial court to the relevant portion of the statute pertaining to withholding of adjudication for second degree felonies. See State v. Johnson, 990 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 3d DCA2008). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order imposing Pearson’s downward departure in the form of a second withhold of adjudication and remand so that the trial court can either adjudicate the defendant or allow the defendant…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Paulk, 813 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Freeman v. State, 963 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- State v. Roberts, 963 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)