|
In the case ofSantisteban vs. State of Florida, the appellate court} upheld defendant's conviction for the crime vehicular manslaughter and vacated his sentence and remanded the case for resentencing in front of a different judge. The Defendant was convicted of four counts of vehicular homicide arising from a gasoline truck collision that killed 4 people. On appeal, the defendant alleged that the trial judge committed reversable error in denying defendant's motion to recuse himself from defendant's criminal case when he was also the presiding judge over the civil proceeding involving the same incident; the evidence presented at trial was not legally sufficient to support the jury finding of criminal negligence; the verdict was "inconsistent with the weight of the evidence"; & the courtcommitted reversable error by failing to grant a more significant downward departure from the recommended sentence.  The Fourth District Court of Appeal} ruled that defendant's motion was technically deficient & also didn't allege a legally sufficient ground for judicial disqualification; the prosecution presented a sufficient amount of evidence of defendant's reckless conduct in order to get past a motion for a judgment of acquittal; that the appellate court has no authority to overturn a jury verdict even if it believes it is inconsistent with the evidence; and while the extent of a downward departure typically is not appealable, the trial judge in this matter relied on constitutionally impermissible considerations while arriving at a conclusion concerning the extent of defendant's downward departure. Defendant was driving a gasoline tanker from interstate 595 onto an exit ramp leading to the Florida Turnpike. The truck contained 9,000 gallons of gasoline. The defendant entered the curve in the exit ramp onto the turnpike at a speed which was faster than the posted speed. The accident victims were occupants of a a 2001 Mercury and were traveling in front of of the gasoline tanker. Defendant argued that the trial judge improperly used religious considerations in determining the sentence. Under these specific facts & circumstances in this particular case, the appellate court} concluded that the trial judge relied on constitutionally impermissible considerations in determining the departure. While pronouncing defendant's sentence, the trial judge relied on a religious concept in determining the defendant's sentence. The trial court said, on the record, as follows: "Now, no number of years will bring back four extraordinary people or the scars that have been created as a result of what happened to those four extraordinary people. In the Jewish tradition there is a concept [of chai, it's 18] that stands for life which is something I wish to be mindful of in imposing a sentence over the loss of life of four Jewish people. I accept that you are a good friend, are a loving husband, & will prove to be a good father to your child as you have another child I understand. It is my sentence to downward depart by one year and impose a sentence of [double chai] 36 years, Florida state prison." The 4th District Court of Appeal} overturned the sentenceand remanded for a new sentencing hearing, noting it could not say that the sentence would be the same without reliance on the impermissible ground. For more information on Defense Attorney Miami FL , Dui Attorney Miami FL and Dui Lawyer Miami FL please contact us at: The Law Offices of Rosenberg and Dye 201 South Biscayne Boulevard 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 (305)459-3286
Related Articles -
dui attorney miami fl, criminal attorney miami fl, attorney miami fl, defense attorney miami fl, criminal defense attorney miami fl,
| 
