DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

REGINALD LEE TAYLOR, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-838

[August 15, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Glenn D. Kelley, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502015CF012910AXXXMB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and David John McPherrin, 

Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Georgina 

Jimenez-Orosa, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for 

appellee.

KUNTZ, J.

The Defendant appeals his conviction for one count of sale of heroin, 

and his sentence to 48 months’ imprisonment. We affirm his conviction 

and write to explain our affirmance of his sentence.

Generally, “when a sentence is within statutory limits, it is not subject 

to review by an appellate court” unless the sentencing court violated the 

Defendant’s constitutional rights. Charles v. State, 204 So. 3d 63, 66 (Fla. 

4th DCA 2016) (quoting Howard v. State, 820 So. 2d 337, 339 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2002)). 

These limits were set by the legislature in the Criminal Punishment 

Code, which provides that a “trial court judge may impose a sentence up 

to and including the statutory maximum for any offense . . . that is before 

the court . . . .” § 921.002(1)(g), Fla. Stat. (2014). “The permissible range 

for sentencing shall be the lowest permissible sentence up to and including 

the statutory maximum . . . for . . . any . . . offenses before the court for 
2

sentencing. The sentencing court may impose such sentences 

concurrently or consecutively.” § 921.0024(2), Fla. Stat. (2014). 

Here, the Defendant argues the circuit court impermissibly sentenced 

him above the lowest sentence permitted by the Criminal Punishment 

Code without articulating reasons for doing so. He argues that if it is true 

“that sentencing discretion be based upon logic and reason, not whim or 

caprice, trial courts should be required to articulate a valid basis for 

deciding that one appropriate sentence is more appropriate than another 

less severe appropriate sentence.”

No provision of the constitution or statute requires a judge to articulate 

the reasons for not giving the statutory minimum sentence when the 

sentence falls between the statutory minimum and maximum. It is quite 

the opposite. We “afford substantial deference both to the legislature and 

the sentencing court.” Charles, 204 So. 3d at 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)

(Levine, J., concurring) (citing Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290 (1983)). 

The legislature has broad discretion in determining the appropriate 

punishment range for crimes, and trial courts have broad discretion when 

sentencing a defendant within the statutory limits. Id. (citing Apprendi v. 

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 481 (2000)).

Finally, the court did articulate its reason. It concluded that based on 

the nature of the crime and the Defendant’s past criminal history, the 

court did not believe the lowest permissible sentence was appropriate. 

In any event, a court need not articulate reasons for sentencing a 

Defendant to a specific sentence when that sentence is within the 

minimum and maximum limits set by the legislature. Here, the 

Defendant’s sentence was within those legislative limits, and the 

Defendant has identified no purported violation of his constitutional or 

statutory rights. Thus, the Defendant’s conviction and sentence are 

affirmed.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.