Opinion
Case No. 2D19-1581
08-21-2020
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Christopher Terrelle HUNT, Appellee.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Laurie Benoit-Knox, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Clark E. Green, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellee.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Laurie Benoit-Knox, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant.
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Clark E. Green, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellee.
SMITH, Judge.
The State appeals the downward departure sentence imposed by the trial court on Christopher Hunt. Because the reasons given by the trial court for imposing the downward departure sentence are not supported by competent, substantial evidence, we reverse Mr. Hunt's sentence and remand to the trial court to impose a legal sentence.
Mr. Hunt pleaded guilty to one count each of aggravated assault, domestic battery by strangulation, resisting arrest with violence, and resisting, obstructing, or opposing an officer without violence. While the plea agreement included a sentencing cap of 24.45 months in prison, the trial court sentenced Mr. Hunt to nine months in the county jail, followed by six months' community control, followed by twelve months' probation. The trial court found Mr. Hunt qualified for a downward departure sentence under section 921.0026(2)(k), Florida Statutes (2018), which permits a departure when a defendant is "too young to appreciate the consequences of the offense." On appeal, the State argues the trial court's findings in support of Mr. Hunt's downward departure sentence are not supported by competent, substantial evidence. We agree. The facts giving rise to Mr. Hunt's arrest occurred when Mr. Hunt was twenty-two years old. Mr. Hunt and the victim, who have a child in common, got into an argument at the victim's home that culminated in Mr. Hunt grabbing the victim by the hair and striking her in the face with a closed fist several times before throwing her to the ground. Mr. Hunt got on top of the victim and, while choking her with one hand, shouted he was going to kill her. While on top of the victim, he pulled a BB gun from his pocket and pointed it at the victim's chest. Mr. Hunt then dragged the victim outside by her hair. When officers arrived, they found Mr. Hunt in the front yard pacing. He violently resisted the officers arrest. Later in the patrol car, Mr. Hunt apologized to the officers for his actions.
At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Hunt's father testified that Mr. Hunt is a "good kid" but is misguided. Mr. Hunt's father opined that Mr. Hunt needs a little bit of encouragement, positive reinforcement, and someone to hold him responsible for his actions.
Mr. Hunt's father testified that Mr. Hunt was enrolled in a dual barber program whereby he would receive his barber's license and GED. A letter from the school's campus director was entered into evidence, which stated that Mr. Hunt is a talented young man with a bright future in the barber industry. The campus director wrote that she personally knows Mr. Hunt to be a kind and caring person and she looked forward to Mr. Hunt re-enrolling in the barber program.
Mr. Hunt's father also testified that Mr. Hunt was working at a local restaurant. The restaurant's manager wrote a letter stating that he would continue to employ Mr. Hunt if he was released from custody, and that Mr. Hunt worked well with others and always showed great enthusiasm when dealing with customers. This letter was also admitted into evidence.
Mr. Hunt spoke at the sentencing hearing and apologized by saying, "I am sorry for the things that are allegedly said in here. I ask that you do have mercy on me. ... I was trying to get myself together as a young adult for the sake of my child. To be a better person and a better man." Mr. Hunt told the court he was twenty-two at the time of the incident, had reached the twelfth grade in high school but did not receive his diploma, did not have his GED, and he has three children.
In the proceedings below, Mr. Hunt initially sought a downward departure based on section 921.0026(2)(j), which allows for a downward departure if "[t]he offense was committed in an unsophisticated manner and was an isolated incident for which the defendant has shown remorse." During the hearing, Mr. Hunt also requested a downward departure based on section 921.0026(2)(k), which allows a downward departure if "[a]t the time of the offense the defendant was too young to appreciate the consequences of the offense."
The trial court denied Mr. Hunt's request for a downward departure under section 921.0026(2)(j) after considering the probable cause affidavit, which indicated that Mr. Hunt had the BB gun in his possession when he entered the victim's house, and also after considering Mr. Hunt's scoresheet, which showed prior convictions for grand theft and resisting an officer without violence. The trial court stated, "I can't in good conscious find that the crime was committed in an unsophisticated manner or that it was an isolated incident. Although I would find that he has shown remorse." However, the trial court did find that Mr. Hunt was "immature" at the time of the offense and "too young to appreciate the consequences of his behavior." Thus, the court granted the downward departure based upon section 921.0026(2)(k) after making the following findings:
Mr. Hunt has not filed a notice of cross-appeal from the trial court's denial of his request for a downward departure under section 921.0026(2)(j). Nor has Mr. Hunt argued the trial court's denial was erroneous. Therefore, we do not address the issue.
[H]e has a relatively insignificant criminal history and in -- all of these charges stem from the same incident. And he was just a couple weeks shy of his 23rd birthday. And this Court is familiar with all of the scientific research that says that males, in particular, don't have their brains fully developed until they're aged 25. He didn't finish his high school education nor had he accomplished his GED.
He's a young man with three children. I would find that he was immature and that at the time of the offense, he was too young to appreciate the consequences of his behavior.
"A trial court must impose a guidelines sentence unless the court finds that the evidence supports a valid reason for a departure sentence." State v. Barnes, 753 So. 2d 605, 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). A trial court's decision whether to depart downward from the sentencing guidelines is a two-part process. Banks v. State, 732 So. 2d 1065, 1067 (Fla. 1999). First, the trial court must determine whether there is a valid legal ground for a downward departure and whether there is adequate factual support for the ground for departure. In the first step, the trial court's determination involves a mixed question of law and fact, which decision will be sustained on review if the trial court applied the correct rule of law and there is competent, substantial evidence to support the ruling. Id. Second, if there is a valid basis for the trial court to permissibly depart, it must determine whether departure is the best sentencing option for the defendant in the pending case. The second step involves a judgment call that is within the sound discretion of the trial court and absent an abuse of discretion, such decision will be sustained on appellate review. Id. at 1068. The level of proof necessary to establish the requisite facts supporting a departure is by a preponderance of the evidence. § 921.002(1)(f).
In this case, the trial court relied upon section 921.0026(2)(k), which allows for a downward departure if "[a]t the time of the offense the defendant was too young to appreciate the consequences of the offense." However, a defendant's youthful age alone will not justify a departure sentence; there must also be evidence the defendant is emotionally immature or lacks ordinary intelligence. State v. Licea, 707 So. 2d 1155, 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) ; State v. Gilson, 800 So. 2d 727, 730 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) ; State v. Ashley, 549 So. 2d 226, 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). "[T]he statute specifically requires that the defendant must also be unable to appreciate the consequences of the offense in order to be eligible for a downward departure." State v. Salgado, 948 So. 2d 12, 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) ; see also State v. Browne, 187 So. 3d 377, 378 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (holding the trial court erred in imposing a downward departure sentence where there was no competent, substantial proof that the defendant was too young to appreciate the consequences of his offenses); State v. Leverett, 44 So. 3d 634, 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (reversing a downward departure sentence where there was no evidence to support the trial court's finding that the defendant was too young to appreciate the consequences of his actions; there was no evidence the defendant, who was twenty-one years old at the time of the offense, suffered from a mental defect inhibiting his ability to appreciate the consequences of his offenses); State v. Williams, 963 So. 2d 281, 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (finding that the defendant's age of twenty-two "would hardly place him in the category of being too young to appreciate the consequences of driving with a revoked license").
In the instant case, the record is devoid of any evidence suggesting that Mr. Hunt lacked the maturity to appreciate the consequences of his actions. Mr. Hunt was twenty-two years old when he committed these offenses. He had made it to the twelfth grade, was gainfully employed, and in the process of obtaining his barber's license and GED. He also had three children. Nor was there any evidence suggesting Mr. Hunt suffered from a diminished mental capacity or other mental deficit that prevented him from appreciating the consequences of his conduct. The trial court's reliance on its familiarity "with all of the scientific research that says that males, in particular, don't have their brains fully developed until they're aged 25," does not constitute competent, substantial evidence where there was no actual evidence presented by either party as to this "scientific research."
Accordingly, because there was no competent, substantial evidence that Mr. Hunt was too young to appreciate the consequences of his offenses, the trial court erred in imposing the downward departure sentence. We reverse and remand to the trial court for the imposition of a legal sentence, which may include a new downward departure sentence as long as it is supported by a legally sufficient basis. See Jackson v. State, 64 So. 3d 90, 93 (Fla. 2011) ; State v. Reith, 43 So. 3d 909, 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).
Reversed and remanded.
SILBERMAN and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.