Mandri v. State, 813 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
Mandri v. State, 813 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Pressley v. State (fladistctapp, 2006-02-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pressley v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
This failure distinguishes the case from Mandri v. State, 813 So.2d 65, 66 (Fla.2002), and brings it under Butler v. State, 765 So.2d 274, 275 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
cited Cited "see" Telly Jon Knott v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mandri v. State, 813 So.2d 65 (Fla.2002) (finding that failure to file written reasons was harmless error corrected by court filing written reasons in response to motion to correct sentence).
discussed Cited "see" Pierre v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pierre v. State, 821 So.2d 1174, 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (rejecting Pierre's argument that his departure sentence must be vacated because the trial court failed to file written reasons within the time allowed under sentencing statute, where at hearing on Pierre's motion to correct sentence, trial court signed the transcript of the original sentencing hearing, stating that the signed transcript would stand as the departure order) (citing Mandri v. State, 813 So.2d 65 (Fla.2002)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Goldberg v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Mandri v. State, 813 So.2d 65 (Fla. 2002) (trial court’s failure to file written reasons in support of guidelines departure sentence was harmless error corrected by court’s filing of written reasons in response to motion for correction of sentence).
Carlos MANDRI, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
SC00-2162.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Feb 28, 2002.
813 So. 2d 65
Per Curiam.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

[*66] Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Lisa Walsh, Assistant Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, FL, for Petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Michael J. Neimand, Bureau Chief, and Paulette R. Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, Miami, FL, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Mandri v. State, 767 So.2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), reh'g denied and question certified, 767 So.2d at 524, in which the Third District certified the following question as one of great public importance:

WHERE A TRIAL COURT FAILS TO FILE WRITTEN REASONS IN SUPPORT OF A GUIDELINES DEPARTURE SENTENCE BUT, THEREAFTER, IN RESPONSE TO A FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.800(B) MOTION FILED BY DEFENDANT, DOES FILE WRITTEN REASONS JUSTIFYING THE DEPARTURE, IS DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A REVERSAL AND A REMAND FOR A GUIDELINES SENTENCE, UNDER MADDOX V. STATE, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000)?

Mandri, 767 So.2d at 524. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

In Weiss v. State, 761 So.2d 318, 319 (Fla.2000), we approved the application of the harmless error doctrine to nonfundamental sentencing error. See also Matchett v. State, 791 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 2001). In the case before us, the trial court did not commit fundamental error, as the petitioner was not prejudiced in his ability to challenge the trial court's reasons for imposing the departure sentence on direct appeal. See Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89, 108 (Fla.2000). Thus, the trial court's errors in filing the written reasons for departure were subject to harmless error analysis. See Weiss, 761 So.2d at 319. We therefore approve the Third District's decision and answer the certified question in the negative.

It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ., concur in result only.