State v. Bowman
123 So. 3d 107
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- State appeals trial court's downward departure from the minimum, two consecutive 5-year terms for violations of 943.0485, Florida Statutes.
- Punishment was suspended after 5 years of probation with conditions.
- Trial court's downward departure was based on non-statutory grounds, including reliance on a federal Heartland doctrine.
- Minimum permissible sentence calculated under the Criminal Punishment Code was 66.75 months; the suspended term functioned as a downward departure.
- Statutory requirement under §921.002(3) to explain any sentence below the lowest permissible sentence in writing was not met in the record, though a transcript of the hearing contained the court's reasons.
- Court held the Heartland-based ground was not a valid Florida ground for departure and remanded for resentencing with a proper statutory basis and written explanation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the downward departure had a valid legal ground. | State contends there was a valid legal ground for departure. | Appellee contends the grounds were valid, including non-statutory factors. | No valid Florida ground; departure reversed. |
| Whether reliance on the federal Heartland doctrine supports a Florida departure. | State argues non-Heartland grounds prevail; not necessary. | Heartland doctrine valid justify departure in atypical cases. | Heartland doctrine is not a valid Florida departure ground. |
| Whether the lack of a written explanation requires reversal. | State argues factual grounds exist; writing requirement breached. | Appellee argues omission alone may be harmless. | Omission alone does not mandate reversal, but invalid grounds require resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Whiteside, 56 So.3d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (two-step process for departure; valid ground and factual support required)
- Banks v. State, 732 So.2d 1065 (Fla.1999) (downward departure based on non-statutory grounds requires evidence of support)
- State v. Thompkins, 113 So.3d 95 (Fla.5th DCA 2013) (non-statutory mitigator must align with legislative sentencing policies)
- State v. Sigmen, 115 So.3d 1121 (Fla.1st DCA 2013) (lowest minimum sentence cannot be used as a bare harshness ground without factual support)
- State v. Ayers, 901 So.2d 942 (Fla.2d DCA 2005) (policy not to depart when offended by sentence; legislature controls policy)