The Florida District Court of Appeal recently upheld the sentencing of Chandler Richard Leombruno in a case that involved multiple charges. The court's decision, filed on March 12, 2021, addresses the judgments and sentences in seven different cases against Leombruno. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the court's stance on sentencing errors and the importance of preserving objections during trial.
Chandler Richard Leombruno was appealing his judgments and sentences in a total of seven cases. The appeal was filed under case number 2D20-1009. The court's ruling affects Leombruno directly, as it confirms the sentences imposed by the lower court, while also highlighting a potential error regarding the assessment of laboratory fees.
The dispute arose from a series of judgments against Leombruno, which included various charges. The case was brought to the District Court of Appeal after Leombruno's defense team sought to challenge the sentences handed down by the Circuit Court for Pinellas County. The appeal was represented by Howard L. Dimmig, II, the Public Defender, and Richard P. Albertine, Jr., an Assistant Public Defender. The State of Florida was represented by Attorney General Ashley Moody.
In its ruling, the court affirmed the judgments and sentences in all respects. However, it noted a possible unpreserved sentencing error regarding the written judgment for fines and costs in one of the cases. Specifically, the court pointed out that the written judgment reflected a $200 county laboratory fee, while the trial court had orally ordered only a $100 fee. The court stated, "there is a possible sentencing error regarding the trial court's assessment of a $200 laboratory fee where it orally imposed $100." This discrepancy raised concerns about the proper procedure for imposing discretionary costs.
The court referenced previous cases to support its findings, emphasizing that laboratory fees are typically discretionary and must be orally pronounced during sentencing. The court cited the case of Kennedy v. State, which established that such fees should be clearly stated at the time of sentencing. The ruling also referenced Thomas v. State, which reinforced the necessity of orally pronouncing discretionary costs.
Despite acknowledging the potential error, the court ultimately affirmed the sentences because Leombruno failed to preserve the issue by not objecting or filing a motion to correct the sentencing error during the trial. The court noted, "Our affirmance is without prejudice for Mr. Leombruno to seek postconviction relief, if possible." This means that while the court upheld the original sentences, Leombruno still has the option to pursue further legal action regarding the potential error.
The impact of this ruling is significant for Leombruno, as it confirms the validity of his sentences and highlights the importance of addressing any discrepancies during the trial process. The court's decision serves as a reminder to defendants and their attorneys about the necessity of preserving objections to avoid unfavorable outcomes in appeals.
Going forward, this ruling may influence how similar cases are handled in Florida. Defendants may be more vigilant in ensuring that all aspects of their sentencing are accurately recorded and that any potential errors are addressed in real-time. This case also underscores the importance of understanding the procedural requirements for challenging sentencing decisions.
As for what’s next, it remains to be seen whether Leombruno will pursue postconviction relief based on the potential sentencing error noted by the court. The possibility of an appeal to a higher court is also available, but details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or further actions planned by Leombruno.