In the matter ofSantisteban v. State of Florida, the 4th District Court of Appeal} affirmed defendant’s conviction for the of vehicular manslaughter, but reversed and remanded the case for resentencing in front of another judge.
The Defendant was convicted of four counts of vehicular homicide arising from a gasoline truck accident that resulted in the death of four people.
On appeal, the defendant alleged that the trial judge committed reversable error by denying the defendant’s request to recuse himself from defendant’s criminal proceeding due to the fact that he was also the presiding judge in the civil case which involved the same incident; that the evidence presented at trial did not support support a finding of criminal negligence; that the verdict was "inconsistent with the weight of the evidence"; and that the courterred by failing to give the defendant a larger downward departure from the recommended sentence.
The district court of appeal} held that the defendant’s motion was legally deficient and failed to state a legally sufficient ground for recusal; the State of Florida presented a legally sufficient amount of evidence of the defendant’s conduct in order to get past a defense motion for a judgment of acquittal; an appellate court does not have the authority to overturn a jury verdict even if it believes it is not consistent with evidence; & that while the amount of a downward departure usually is not subject to appeal, the trial judge in this case relied, at least to some extent, on constitutionally impermissible considerations in determining the appropriate amount of defendant’s downward departure.
Defendant was driving a tanker from I-595 onto a ramp leading to the Florida Turnpike. The tanker contained 9,000 gallons of fuel. The defendant entered the curve in the exit ramp onto the turnpike at a speed in excess of the posted speed limit. The accident victims occupied a 2001 Mercury traveling ahead of the defendant.
Defendant contended that the trial judge improperly determined defendant’s sentence based on religious considerations. Under these specific facts and circumstances in this particular case, the appellate court} concluded that the trial judge relied on constitutionally impermissible religious considerations in determining the departure. In pronouncing sentencing, the trial judge relied on a concept in determining the sentence. The trial court stated the following:
"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 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 36 years, Florida state prison."
The Fourth District Court of Appeal} reversed the sentence only& remanded for a new sentencing, while noting that it could not say that the new sentence would be the same without reliance on the impermissible religious consideration.
For more information on Criminal Lawyer Miami FL , Defense Attorney Miami FL and Criminal Defense Attorney 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
