Court Opinion

ID: 9917438
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 15:02:55.013631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:08.831360
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
                       SECOND DISTRICT

                      AUSTIN MATTHEW BROOKS,

                       Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

                                    v.

                          STATE OF FLORIDA,

                       Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

                             No. 2D22-3753

                            January 12, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Barbara Twine
Thomas, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender and Dane K. Chase, Special
Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General and Alicia M. Winterkorn, Assistant
Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

     Austin Brooks appeals his convictions for exploitation of an elderly
or disabled adult, fraudulent use of personal information, and money
laundering. The State filed a cross-appeal challenging Brooks' downward
departure sentence. We affirm Brooks' convictions without discussion.
However, we reverse his sentence because the trial court failed to provide
a legally valid reason to justify a downward departure.
     The lowest permissible sentence for Brooks under the Criminal
Punishment Code was 51.52 months in prison. At sentencing, Brooks
sought a lesser sentence to make restitution to the victim's family.1
Brooks also argued that his offenses did not warrant such a harsh
penalty and presented an Excel spreadsheet reflecting several other
cases where the defendants were similarly charged and the sentences
were rarely "over three (3) years in Florida State Prison, despite being in
similar circumstances as Mr. Brooks." The State objected to the trial
court's reliance on the unauthenticated spreadsheet as a basis for a
downward departure. It also pointed out that the charges reflected on
the spreadsheet were not the same charges Brooks was convicted of at
trial and that Brooks was convicted of multiple counts, unlike the cases
cited. The court ruled:
           Although[] the data gathered by defense counsel is not
     scientific, the Court is aware that this is a property offense.
     And by comparison, such property offenses are not usually
     the subject of prison sentences of 51 months. [It] . . . is not
     the common practice to require 51 months of prison for
     stealing $20,000. And so the Court does not find that
     restitution is a basis for downward departure because the
     victim is deceased and it is inconsistent with what the Court
     takes to be the interest of the victim as stated by the State.
     She did not ask for restitution.
           The overall circumstances are such that the Court can
     consider other factors in determining that there is a basis for
     giving less than the full 51 months of prison, including the
     equity sentencing analysis as prepared by counsel. So the
     Court will use that as a basis for determining a downward
     departure of less than 51 months.
           So I specifically find that in comparable situations with

     1 The trial court expressly rejected restitution as a basis for a

downward departure.

                                     2
     comparable scores and somewhat similar crimes, that history
     shown by defense counsel does not show that 51 months is
     used for sentencing. I would state that on the record and
     make a specific factual finding to make that departure.
           The Court will sentence Mr. Brooks to 36 months
     Florida State Prison, three years minimum mandatory to be
     followed by two years of probation during which he must pay
     restitution. If he fails to pay restitution his probation shall
     not be terminated early. He must pay restitution in the
     amount of $20,000. If he fails to do so his probation will not
     be terminated early and will not be terminated successfully.
     "The trial court may not impose a sentence below the lowest
permissible sentence on a defendant's scoresheet unless there is a valid
mitigating circumstance to justify the downward departure." State v.
Saunders, 322 So. 3d 763, 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (citing § 921.0026(1),
Fla. Stat. (2020)). "The defendant bears the burden of establishing by 'a
preponderance of the evidence' that a legal ground for the departure
exists and that facts supporting the legal ground have been established."
Id. at 766 (quoting Carnes v. State, 317 So. 3d 281, 284 (Fla. 2d DCA
2021)). "In evaluating a nonstatutory mitigating circumstance, the
question the trial court should ask is whether the nonstatutory reasons
for downward departure given meet the legislative policy for departing
downward." Rafferty v. State, 799 So. 2d 243, 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
     Here, the court's articulated basis for departure—"that in
comparable situations with comparable scores and somewhat similar
crimes, that history shown by defense counsel does not show that 51
months is used for sentencing"—is not a valid basis for departure. See
State v. Cosby, 313 So. 3d 903, 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (noting that a
downward departure sentence based on cases of similarly situated
defendants was not supported by competent, substantial evidence where
the record failed to show that the trial court was aware of the particular

                                     3
facts and circumstances surrounding those cases). As the State correctly
argues, Brooks presented no evidence regarding the facts of the alleged
"similar" cases that were listed on the spreadsheet, any plea negotiations
that occurred, the offender's criminal history, or any other relevant
information. Moreover, "[t]he trial judge's dissatisfaction with the
recommended guideline range is insufficient to support a downward
departure from the sentencing guidelines." State v. Nolasco, 542 So. 2d
1052, 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also Cosby, 313 So. 3d at 907 ("[T]o
the extent that the downward departure was imposed based on the trial
court's belief that the recommended guidelines sentence was not
commensurate with the seriousness of the crime, Florida courts hold
that is not a valid reason to depart."). We therefore reverse Brooks'
downward departure sentence and remand for resentencing.
     Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

KELLY, VILLANTI, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.

                                      4