Angram v. State — Fourth DCA affirmed in consolidated appeals, finding any downward-departure error harmless

Case
Faith B. Angram v. State of Florida
Court
Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
Judge
Conner (Rick Scott, 2011); KLINGENSMITH (Rick Scott, 2013)
Date Decided
July 29, 2026
Docket No.
4D2025-2485 and 4D2025-2486
Topics
Criminal Sentencing; Downward Departure; Harmless Error
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Faith B. Angram brought consolidated appeals from two criminal cases in the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County. Circuit Judge Scott Ira Suskauer presided over the underlying proceedings.

The Fourth District’s brief per curiam opinion does not describe the offenses, sentences, or detailed arguments on appeal. Its citation to decisions concerning section 921.0026(2)(j), Florida Statutes, indicates that the disposition involved a request for a downward sentencing departure and the trial court’s decision not to depart.

The Court’s Holding

The Fourth District affirmed without extended analysis. Relying on Rodriguez v. State, 299 So. 3d 555, 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020), the court concluded that any error in determining whether a legal basis existed for a downward departure was harmless where the trial court separately determined that it should not depart.

The court also cited its prior decision in Borbon v. State, 367 So. 3d 536 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). Judges Conner and Klingensmith and Associate Judge Charles Schwab concurred in the per curiam disposition.

Key Takeaways

  • A possible error concerning the legal availability of a downward departure may be harmless when the sentencing court independently states that it would not exercise its discretion to depart.
  • The Fourth District affirmed both judgments under review in the consolidated appeals.
  • The opinion supplies no additional facts about the offenses or the sentences imposed.

Why It Matters

The decision reinforces the distinction between whether a lawful basis for departure exists and whether a sentencing court should exercise its discretion to depart. When the record establishes that the court would decline to depart at the discretionary stage, an error at the legal-eligibility stage may not warrant reversal.

The opinion was designated nonfinal until disposition of any timely filed motion for rehearing.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top