JULIAN BROOK DESANTIS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
240 So. 3d 751
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant (17 at time) accidentally shot and killed a friend while handling a 9mm handgun; he admitted drinking and using marijuana and called 911.
- Charged by amended information with manslaughter with a firearm, aggravated assault with a firearm, and possession of a firearm by a minor; convicted of manslaughter, possession of a firearm by a minor, and lesser included improper exhibition of a dangerous weapon.
- Defendant moved for a downward departure and requested youthful offender sentencing; argued youth, remorse, mental-health issues, cooperation, and the isolated/unsophisticated nature of the offense supported departure.
- Trial court acknowledged legal grounds for departure but declined to exercise discretion, stating a policy of not imposing youthful offender sentences when a life was taken; imposed a guidelines sentence (124.8 months).
- On appeal the Fourth District agreed trial court erred in applying a predetermined policy against youthful-offender treatment in death cases and reversed for resentencing before a different judge; other evidentiary and instruction claims were rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court’s stated refusal to consider youthful-offender relief in death cases constitutes an unlawful, predetermined policy | Brook DeSantis argued the court’s categorical policy denied due process by refusing to consider youthful-offender sentencing on the merits | State argued court properly considered circumstances and exercised discretion in imposing an appropriate sentence | Court held the statement revealed a predetermined policy refusing youthful-offender consideration, requiring reversal and resentencing before a different judge |
| Whether competent evidence supported legal grounds for a downward departure | Defendant argued remorse, youth, mental-health, isolated/unsophisticated offense, and cooperation supported legal grounds for departure | State and court agreed there were legal grounds and factual support for departure | Court found there was a legal basis for departure but the trial court improperly refused to consider youthful-offender relief on policy grounds |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in deciding not to depart | Defendant argued departure was warranted given mitigating factors | State argued sentencing within guidelines was appropriate | Court reviewed discretion standard but reversed based on the predetermined policy; did not disturb factual findings that guidelines sentence was reasonable absent policy error |
| Whether resentencing must be before a different judge | Defendant sought resentencing before a different judge due to trial judge’s policy statement | State did not dispute necessity of remedy | Court ordered resentencing before a different judge to cure the due-process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Pressley v. State, 73 So. 3d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (trial court’s categorical refusal to consider a youthful-offender option is arbitrary and denies due process)
- Fraser v. State, 201 So. 3d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (trial court erred by adopting a policy of not considering mental-health mitigation when statute expressly lists it)
- Kovalsky v. State, 220 So. 3d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (two-step review for downward-departure sentences: (1) legal grounds/factual support; (2) abuse-of-discretion review of whether to depart)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2010) (prohibits certain harsh sentences for juveniles and informs liberal treatment of juvenile sentencing issues)
- Andrevil v. State, 226 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (applying Graham principles to long-term juvenile prison sentences)