STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Anthony Lee WILLIAMS, Respondent.
Anthony Lee Williams, Petitioner,
v.
State of Florida, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Rоbert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Bradley R. Bischoff, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for petitioner/respondent.
Nancy Daniels, Public Defеnder and Carl S. McGinnes, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for respondent/petitioner.
GRIMES, Justice.
Pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution, we review Williams v. State,
Whether a sentence must be reversed and remanded for resentencing pursuant to the options provided in Ree v. State, 14 F.L.W. 565 (Fla. Nov. 16, 1989), when there is no significant difference between the reasons for departure from the guidelines which were orally pronounced at the imposition of sentence and the *282 written reasons which were entered the same day or within a few days of the imposition of sentence?
Williams,
Williams was convicted of aggravated assault and resisting an officer without violence. He received a sentence that was above the range of the sentencing guidelines. At sentencing, the trial court announced as reasons for departure that the offense had occurred within five days of Williams' release from incarceration and that the facts indicated a continuing and persistent pattern of criminal conduct. A written statement that contained the same reasons as those that were orally announced was signed the same day as the sentencing but was filed two dаys later. The district court of appeal held that these reasons were a valid basis for departure. However, the court remanded for resentencing because the court's written statement of reasons for departure was not provided at the time of sentencing. In explaining why it chose to certify the question, the court said:
In situatiоns such as this case presents, where there is no significant difference between the reasons for departure orally pronounced at the imposition of sentence and the written reasons entered the same day оr within a few days of the sentencing hearing, we can find no prejudice to the defendant, or any logical reason for remand so that the trial court may reimpose the same sentence using the same written reasons. We would bе inclined to find no error in this case, or at worst, harmless error. But like our sister court in Holmes v. State,556 So.2d 1224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), we acknowledge that until the suрreme court alters its position, we are bound by Ree.
Williams,
The quoted reference to Holmes v. State,
We already "reluctantly" held in Ree v. State,512 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), that the oral pronouncement and the written reasons must bе said and produced at the same instant in time and that any delay (presumably as little as one hour) between the actual hearing and the written reasons would be unacceptable. However, our Ree panel obviously did not like thаt result and certified the question hoping for a reversal. It was not to be, for the Supreme Court, in a very recent оpinion upheld our earlier Ree decision. Ree v. State, 14 F.L.W. 565 (Fla. November 16, 1989).
The Supreme Court, citing other cases to support the proposition that the written reasons must be contemporaneous with the oral pronouncement, held that the word "contemporaneous" means "at the time of sentencing." In other words, they construed "contemporaneous" as being synonymous with "instantaneous."
We are required, most properly so, to adhere to the dictates of our superiors in Tallаhassee, yet we are still unhappy with this result... .
... .
Parenthetically, we would also point out that the oral reasons given for the departure at the sentencing hearing sub judice dovetailed with those set forth in the subsequently written order, except that the former are more wordy and the latter include case citations. Accordingly, there is no prеjudice to the defendant, particularly since there is no change in the actual sentence imposed.
The dicta herein should not be interpreted as a venting of the spleen. A motion for a rehearing has been filed in thе Supreme Court in Ree. Perhaps our views would prove helpful.
Holmes,
Before this Court, the state argues that because the orally announced reasons for deрarture were held valid and the same reasons were put in writing shortly thereafter, it would be useless and burdensome to the courts to require resentencing. On the other hand, Williams contends that under the rationale of Pope v. State,
On July 19, 1990, subsequent to the opinion below in the instant case, we issued an amended opinion in Ree on rehearing.[1] We declined to recede from the view that written reasons for departure must be provided at sentencing. Hоwever, we announced that this rule would only be applied prospectively. In the absence of such a рronouncement, all cases involving the same issue that were pending on appeal at the time Ree becаme final would be subject to reversal under the "pipeline" theory. Smith v. State,
We do not address the issues in this case not encompassed by the certified question. We quash the decision below to the extent that it requires Williams to be resentenced.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
NOTES
Notes
[1] Ree v. State,