State v. Betancourt, 552 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Betancourt, 552 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“t is proper for a judge to reconsider whether a departure from the guidelines is appropriate . . . on remand' when the trial judge has not yet had an opportunity to consider reasons for departure.”
139 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Alix v. State (fladistctapp, 2001-11-07) · Strongest negative: Reginald L. Bryant v. State of Florida (fla, 2014-10-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "but see" Reginald L. Bryant v. State of Florida (2×)
Fla. · 2014 · signal: but cf. · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
t is proper for a judge to reconsider whether a departure from the guidelines is appropriate . . . on remand' when the trial judge has not yet had an opportunity to consider reasons for departure.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alix v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
However, because the trial court at the original sentencing hearing did not recognize that it was imposing a departure *361 sentence, the trial court may consider on remand whether "departure is appropriate and, if so, to set forth valid reasons for departure." See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla.1989); Lovett v. State, 773 So.2d 574, 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)(holding that "since the [trial] court mistakenly believed that habitualization was permissible ..., the [trial] court may in its discretion consider a departure sentence at resentencing.").
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wilburn v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla.1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Watson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Kepner v. State, 577 So.2d 576, 578 (Fla.1991); State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 1989); Reed v. State, 681 So.2d 913, 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Reyes v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107,1108 (Fla.1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pulles v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
The court then imposed the 27 year sentence. “[Bjecause the trial court did not realize .that it was imposing a departure sentence, on remand the court may impose a departure sentence as long as proper contemporaneous written reasons are provided.” See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla.1989); Hicks v. State, 640 So.2d 1221, 1222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).” Richardson v. State, 646 So.2d 303, 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (footnote omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nelson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 1989); Smith v. State, 639 So.2d 160, 161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
E.g., State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla.1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Reynolds v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla.1989); Hood, 603 So.2d at 643 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Isom v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108-09 (Fla. 1989); Roberts v. State, 547 So.2d 129, 130-31 (Fla. 1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kelly v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
In short, I conclude the circumstances of this case call for application of the rule pronounced in State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Snyder v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Henderson v. State, 577 So.2d 653, 654 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), citing State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hood v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 1989); Wood v. State, 593 So.2d 557, 557-58 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Miranda v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla.1989).
cited Cited "see" Suarez v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla.1989).
cited Cited "see" Torres v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989).
cited Cited "see" Carter v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989); Trotter v. State, 774 So.2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
cited Cited "see" Moore v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla.1989).
cited Cited "see" Gonzalez v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla.1989).
cited Cited "see" Terry v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989).
cited Cited "see" Lovett v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla.1989).
discussed Cited "see" State v. White (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla.1989).
cited Cited "see" Gardner v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989).
discussed Cited "see" Durant v. State (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Betancourt, 552 So.2d at 1108 .
cited Cited "see" State v. Douglas
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989); State v. Henriquez, 717 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).
cited Cited "see" State v. Henriquez
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108-09 (Fla.1989).
cited Cited "see" Golz v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla.1989); Davis v. State, 697 So.2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
cited Cited "see" Sailor v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989); Fla. R.Crim.
cited Cited "see" Debose v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989); State v. Marsk, 687 So.2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Hicks v. State, 640 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
examined Cited "see" Miller v. State (3×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla.1989); Watson v. State, 690 So.2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
cited Cited "see" Rocha v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989).
cited Cited "see" Finch v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 1989).
cited Cited "see" Henderson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989).
cited Cited "see" Gardener v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989).
discussed Cited "see" Reed v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Betancourt v. State, 550 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 3d DCA), aff'd in part, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989) (combination of incarceration and community control exceeded recommended guideline sentence, and was departure sentence necessitating written reasons; the Youthful Offender Act limits a youthful offender sentence to the maximum sentence authorized under the sentencing guidelines); Jones v. State, 582 So.2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (reversing sentence of four years probation followed by two years community control on the authority of Betancourt, as an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines).
cited Cited "see" Gilbert v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989); Henderson v. State, 577 So.2d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), review denied, 589 So.2d 291 (Fla.1991); State v. Hughes, 677 So.2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
discussed Cited "see" Wilson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 1989) (where trial court did not recognize that it was imposing departure sentence, it was not required, upon remand for failure to state reasons for departure, to impose sentence within sentencing guidelines; rather, court was entitled to consider on remand whether departure was appropriate and, if so, to set forth valid reasons for departure); Roberts v. State, 547 So.2d 129 (Fla. 1989).
cited Cited "see" Crawford v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 1989); Henderson v. State, 577 So.2d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 589 So.2d 291 (Fla. 1991).
cited Cited "see" Powell v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989); Brown v. State, 632 So.2d 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); see also State v. Vanhorn, 561 So.2d 584 (Fla.1990).
discussed Cited "see" Coney v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989) (where trial court did not recognize that it was imposing a departure sentence, it was not required upon remand for failure to state reasons for departure, to impose sentence within sentencing guidelines; rather, court was entitled to consider on remand whether departure was appropriate and if so, to set forth valid reasons for departure); Miranda v. State, 643 So.2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (quashing defendant’s sentence and remanding with instructions to either set forth valid written reasons or for sentencing within the guidelines, because…
cited Cited "see" Cavaretta v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 1989).
cited Cited "see" Richardson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Betancourt v. State, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989); Ivey.
cited Cited "see" Mannino v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989); Williams v. State, 591 So.2d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
cited Cited "see" Gordon v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108-09 (Fla. 1989); Hicks v. State, 640 So.2d 1221, 1222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
cited Cited "see" Richardson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla.1989); Hicks v. State, 640 So.2d 1221, 1222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). 1 Convictions AFFIRMED; sentence VACATED; cause REMANDED.
cited Cited "see" Gray v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989); Davis v. State, 636 So.2d 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Harmon v. State, 599 So.2d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
cited Cited "see" Hodges v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 1989).
cited Cited "see" Miranda v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989); Davis v. State, 636 So.2d 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Harmon v. State, 599 So.2d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
cited Cited "see" Hause v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 1989); Davis v. State, 636 So.2d 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Harmon v. State, 599 So.2d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
cited Cited "see" Craig v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 1989).
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Roberto L. BETANCOURT, Respondent.
73806.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Nov 22, 1989.
552 So. 2d 1107
Overton.
Cited by 124 opinions  |  Published

[*1108] Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Debora J. Turner and Jorge Espinosa, Asst. Attys. Gen., Miami, for petitioner.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Henry H. Harnage, Asst. Public Defender, Miami, for respondent.

OVERTON, Justice.

This cause is before us on petition to review Betancourt v. State, 550 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The district court reversed Betancourt's sentence, finding that the trial judge had departed from the sentencing guidelines without written reasons, and directed that Betancourt be resentenced within the guidelines range on remand. We have jurisdiction because of conflict with Roberts v. State, 534 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), approved, 547 So.2d 129 (Fla. 1989), and Waldron v. State, 529 So.2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (en banc). Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed, we quash that part of the district court decision which mandates that the trial court resentence within the sentencing guidelines.

The relevant facts reflect that Roberto L. Betancourt was convicted of armed robbery with a deadly weapon. The trial judge sentenced him as a youthful offender to a split sentence of four years of incarceration followed by two years of community control. There is no indication in the record that the trial court considered this sentence to be a departure from the sentencing guidelines, and the trial court gave no reasons for departure. The Third District Court reversed Betancourt's sentence because the aggregate of his term of incarceration and his term of community control exceeded the recommended guidelines sentence of three and one-half to four and one-half years incarceration. The district court held that the sentence in this case was a departure sentence, and that valid reasons for such departure must be set forth in writing under the Youthful Offender Act, section 958.04(3), Florida Statutes (1987). The district court remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing within the guidelines, relying on its prior decision in Harrison v. State, 523 So.2d 726 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

Although we agree with the Third District Court of Appeal that Betancourt's original sentence must be characterized as a departure sentence, see State v. Mestas, 507 So.2d 587 (Fla. 1987), we disagree with the district court's holding that the trial court must sentence Betancourt within the guidelines on remand. In our recent opinion in Roberts, we held that "it is proper for a judge to reconsider whether a departure from the guidelines is appropriate ... on remand" when the trial judge has not yet had an opportunity to consider reasons for departure. 547 So.2d at 131. We specifically disapproved Harrison. In Roberts, the trial judge imposed an improper sentence, characterized by the district court as a departure sentence, because of an improperly calculated scoresheet. He did not know that he was imposing a departure sentence, which required written reasons for departure. Similarly, in the instant case, the trial judge did not know that she was imposing a departure sentence, which required written reasons for departure. We cannot find any material distinction between these two cases. However, we can distinguish both of these situations from an initial sentencing in which the trial judge has used invalid reasons in imposing a departure sentence. We conclude, in accordance with Roberts, that the trial judge in the instant case must be allowed to consider on remand whether departure is appropriate and, if so, to set forth valid reasons for departure.

Accordingly, we approve the Third District Court of Appeal's reversal of Betancourt's[*1109] sentence but disapprove its instruction that Betancourt be resentenced within the sentencing guidelines on remand. The district court is directed to remand with directions to comply with the views expressed in this opinion.

It is so ordered.

EHRLICH, C.J., and McDONALD, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.