The First District Court of Appeal has held that a sentencing judge who rejects a request for a downward departure does not have to state on the record the reasons for that decision, expressly disagreeing with the reasoning of a line of Second District Court of Appeal decisions.
Bryan Arthur Weber entered an open no contest plea in Alachua County to exploitation of an elderly person. His lowest permissible sentence was 34.5 months, and the maximum was 30 years. He sought a departure on two statutory grounds: the need for restitution, and that the offense was unsophisticated, isolated, and followed by remorse. The court declined to depart, found the restitution evidence insufficient, said nothing about the second ground, and imposed twelve years, telling Weber, “You deserve more.”
The First District affirmed. Relying on its decision in Gazoombi v. State, it held that “proof of a departure ground does not establish any entitlement to a departure sentence”; it only lowers the bottom of the range. Relying on its June 2026 decision in Davis v. State, it repeated that “no rule or statute requires a sentencing court to set forth its reasons for refusing to impose a departure.”
Weber relied on Second District cases, including Williams and Manyak, that reversed where the record did not reflect the “Banks two-step analysis.” The First District agreed those cases “suggest that this failure could constitute reversible error. But we disagree with their reasoning.” It wrote: “We find that the Second District’s approach is inconsistent with the presumption of correctness.”
Download the full opinion (PDF)
Citation: Weber v. State, No. 1D2025-1427 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 30, 2026).
More analysis may follow as additional information is received and reviewed. Sign up for alerts.