STATE
v.
SHINE JR.
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.
A trial court must provide a valid legal basis for imposing a downward departure sentence; considerations such as prior downward departures and proportionality concerns alone do not constitute valid legal grounds under Florida sentencing law.
[1] A trial court's reliance on prior downward departures and considerations of proportionality and graduated sanctions does not constitute a valid legal basis for imposing a…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShine was convicted and sentenced to three years of drug offender probation. After violating probation in 2015, the trial court revoked probation and …
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 Sentencing Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
SUAREZ, J.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
The State of Florida moves for rehearing of this Court’s August 23, 2017 opinion. We grant rehearing, withdraw our prior opinion and substitute the following opinion in its stead.
The State of Florida appeals the downward departure sentence imposed upon
Defendant Derek Lang Shine on December 22, 2015 in connection with a probation violation.1 Finding that the trial court failed to provide a valid legal ground for its downward departure, we reverse.
In 2015, Shine was convicted and sentenced to three years of drug offender probation, pursuant to a plea agreement with the State. Later in 2015, Shine violated his probation and the trial court revoked probation and sentenced him to forty (40) months of prison followed by forty (40) months of probation for count one and a concurrent term of forty (40) months prison, followed by a concurrent term of twelve (12) months of probation for count two. The sentence imposed was a downward departure sentence to which the State objected.
We conclude that the trial court’s reasoning does not amount to a valid legal basis for the downward departure sentence imposed. See § 921.0026 Fla. Stat.
(2014); State v. Pita, 54 So. 3d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); State v. Kasten, 775 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); State v. Nolasco, 542 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA
1989). Consequently, we reverse and remand for resentencing within the sentencing guidelines.
Reversed and remanded.
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Elvis Pita, 54 So. 3d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- State v. Mikeal Kasten, 775 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- State v. Nolasco, 542 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)