State v. Whiteside
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Whiteside was charged with burglary of a dwelling and dealing in stolen property.
- Whiteside pled no contest to the charges and received two concurrent 18-month sentences.
- The criminal punishment score-sheet showed a lowest permissible sentence of 28.1 months.
- At plea, Whiteside sought a departure; the trial court imposed 18 months citing factual mitigation and overstatement by guidelines.
- The court stated the burglary was opportunistic and among the least aggravated, and that guidelines overaccentuate.
- Appellate review applies a two-step departure framework; step one requires a valid legal ground and fact support; step two considers whether a departure is appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court provide a valid legal ground for departure? | Whiteside | Whiteside | No valid legal ground articulated |
Key Cases Cited
- Banks v. State, 732 So.2d 1065 (Fla.1999) (two-step departure framework; step 1 validity and factual support)
- State v. Betancourt, 40 So.3d 53 (Fla.5th DCA 2010) (downward departure must be supported by statutory factors or competent evidence)
- Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1308 (Fla.1986) (dissatisfaction with guidelines not a valid departure ground)
- Scurry v. State, 489 So.2d 25 (Fla.1986) (disagreement with guidelines not valid departure ground)
- Ivry v. State, 534 So.2d 830 (Fla.2d DCA 1988) (dissatisfaction with guidelines not valid departure ground)