DOMONIC CHAVEZ TORRES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Domonic Chavez Torres appeals his sentences following guilty pleas to armed burglary, robbery with a weapon, armed false imprisonment, and attempted robbery. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing because the trial court erroneously believed it lacked discretion to sentence Torres differently from his codefendant, when in fact the court could have imposed a youthful offender sentence or downward departure.
The trial court erred in determining that it could not legally impose a youthful offender sentence or downward departure sentence. The court had discretion to sentence Torres differently from Cuevas based on Torres's mental health treatment needs and cooperation with law enforcement.
[1] A trial court errs when it believes it lacks the legal basis to sentence a defendant differently from a codefendant.
[2] A defendant may seek a downward departure sentence based on the need for specialized mental health treatment and amenability to such treatment, provided the disorder is u…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the court was mistaken in its belief that it could not legally impose a youthful offender sentence or a downward departure sentence”
Establishes the legal error—the trial court misunderstood its sentencing discretion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTorres and codefendant Brian Cuevas were charged with armed robberies of two spas in Hillsborough County, Florida. Torres pleaded guilty to two counts…
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 Cooperation With Law Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
Domonic Chavez Torres appeals the sentences imposed by the trial court in two cases following his guilty pleas to two counts of armed burglary of a structure, six counts of robbery with a weapon, seven counts of armed false imprisonment, and attempted robbery with a weapon. The State concedes that the court erred in determining that it could not find a legal basis to sentence Torres differently from one of his codefendants. We agree and reverse and remand for resentencing.
Torres and his codefendant Brian Cue-vas were charged in connection with the armed robberies of two spas in Hillsbor-ough County, Florida. Cuevas pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 312.75 months in prison. At sentencing, Torres sought either a youthful offender sentence or a downward departure sentence. Torres presented testimony that he suffered from dysthymia or chronic low-grade depression, that he was amenable to psychotherapy, and that the prison system did not provide such psychotherapy. See § 921.0026(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2006) (allowing a downward departure where “[t]he defendant requires specialized treatment for a mental disorder that is unrelated to substance abuse or addiction or for a physical disability, and the defendant is amenable to treatment”). Torres also presented evidence of his cooperation with law enforcement. See § 921.0026(2)(i) (allowing a downward departure where “[t]he defendant cooperated with the state to resolve the current offense or any other offense”).
Despite the evidence presented by Torres, the trial court stated that it could not “find a legal basis to sentence this young man differently than to sentence Mr. Cue-vas.” The court sentenced Torres to concurrent terms of twenty-six years in prison on the armed burglary of a structure and robbery with a weapon charges and fifteen years in prison on the armed false imprisonment and attempted robbery with a weapon charges.
The State concedes that the court was mistaken in its belief that it could not legally impose a youthful offender sentence or a downward departure sentence. We are unable to determine from the record whether the court would have imposed the same sentences if it had understood *1283that it had the discretion to sentence Torres differently from Cuevas. Therefore, we reverse Torres’s sentences and remand to the trial court for resentencing. See Hines v. State, 817 So.2d 964, 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (reversing and remanding for resentencing where trial court sentenced defendant “under a misconception about its discretion in sentencing”). On resen-tencing, the court is authorized to exercise its discretion in determining whether to impose either a youthful offender sentence, a downward departure sentence, or the same sentence.
Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.
WALLACE and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kezal v. State, 42 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…and the reviewing court is unable to determine whether the trial court would have imposed the same sentence if it had understood its discretion, then the sentence imposed must be vacated and the case remanded for resentenc-ing. See Torres v. State, 17 So. 3d 1282, 1282-83 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (citing Hines v. State, 817 So. 2d 964, 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). Here, Ms. Kezal argues that the circuit court mistakenly determined that it did not have the discretion to impose a departure sentence under subsections (2…
Authorities Cited
- Hines v. State, 817 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)