JORDAN FUSS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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's finding that an incident is not isolated for purposes of sentencing is reviewed for competent substantial evidence and will not be reversed if supported by the record.
[1] A trial court's factual finding that a criminal incident is not isolated, made for purposes of sentencing under section 921.0026(2)(j), is reviewed for competent substant…
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 intelligence“Whether an incident is isolated is an issue of fact to be determined by the trial court and will not be reversed if there is competent substantial evidence to support it.”
Standard of review applied to challenge of trial court's finding on whether incident was isolated
Jordan Fuss appealed his sentence of 14.625 years, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion for downward departure based on section 921.0026…
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 Isolated Incident cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals his sentence of 14.625 years, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion for downward departure under section 921.0026(2)(j), Florida Statutes (2014), and specifically challenging the trial court’s finding that, by a preponderance of the evidence, the incident was not isolated.
“Whether an incident is isolated is an issue of fact to be determined by the trial court and will not be reversed if there is competent substantial evidence to support it.” State v. Fontaine, 955 So. 2d 1248, 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (Warner, J., concurring). Based on the record before us and the arguments made on appeal, we conclude that the trial court’s finding was supported by competent substantial evidence and we affirm.
Affirmed. WARNER, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
* * *
2