State v. Hodges
151 So. 3d 531
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Albert Hodges was charged with multiple counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana after August 10, 2012; his lowest permissible guidelines sentence was 36.3 months and he qualified as a habitual felony offender.
- At a pretrial hearing the judge (a backup judge) offered Hodges 366 days’ imprisonment; Hodges accepted, was sentenced as a habitual offender to 366 days, and the court said it would file departure reasons.
- The State appealed the downward departure the day after sentencing; the trial court did not timely file written reasons or a transcript within the seven-day rule for departures.
- More than a year later, after the State had filed its initial brief, the trial court entered a written order claiming two bases for departure: the remoteness of a 2003 arson conviction and alleged police sentence manipulation.
- The appellate court held the late written order invalid under Rule 3.704 and related authority, found the oral reason insufficient, and rejected both written bases as invalid or unsupported by competent substantial evidence.
- The judgment and sentence were vacated and the case remanded; the trial court may consider another downward departure only if Hodges proves a valid reason by a preponderance of competent substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Hodges' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of written reasons for downward departure | Written order filed >1 year after sentencing is ineffective; procedural rules require timeliness | Trial court’s later-filed written order should validate departure | Written order untimely and void under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.704 and Miran; oral reasons must be evaluated instead |
| Adequacy of oral reason at sentencing | Oral statement (remoteness of prior arson) insufficient to justify departure | Oral reason suffices or was adequate basis for plea-based disposition | Oral reason insufficient to support downward departure |
| Validity of “remote” prior conviction as basis for departure | Legislature/Code controls scoring; prior arson properly scored and not remote | Prior 2003 arson was remote; unjustly inflated guidelines score | Remoteness is not a valid independent ground; arson was properly scored and not excluded under §921.0021(5) |
| Sentence manipulation claim | Defense later asserted law enforcement continued transactions to enhance sentence | Defense: officers manipulated events to increase exposure; warrants departure | Sentence-manipulation claim raised post hoc, denied notice to State, and lacked competent substantial evidence; Steadman standard not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. State, 64 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 2011) (trial court may reimpose a departure sentence on remand only if defendant proves valid departure reason by preponderance)
- Steadman v. State, 827 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (sentence manipulation can justify downward departure; inquiry focuses on law enforcement intent and legitimate law‑enforcement reasons)
- Miran v. State, 46 So. 3d 186 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (untimely post-appeal orders on sentencing motions act without jurisdiction and are nullities)
- Bowman v. State, 123 So. 3d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (trial court may depart only for reasons consistent with legislative sentencing policy)