JAMES THEODORE ROBERTS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
James Theodore Roberts appeals his convictions for grand larceny, carrying a concealed weapon, and burglary, challenging primarily his enhanced sentencing as a habitual felony offender under Florida law. The appellate court rejected all of his arguments and affirmed the convictions and sentences.
The trial court properly sentenced Roberts as a habitual felony offender because trial judges have an obligation to ensure proper sentencing is imposed. The procedure used to prove identity, while not approved, did not constitute illegal or prejudicial error. The admission of evidence and denial of a directed verdict on the grand larceny charge were proper based on the circumstantial evidence presented.
[1] A trial judge's obligation to impose a proper sentence does not inherently demonstrate prejudice against a defendant.
[2] A defendant must demonstrate illegality or prejudice resulting from a procedural irregularity to warrant relief, even if the procedure is not ideal.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a trial judge has an obligation to see that the proper sentence is imposed”
Establishes that a trial judge's initiation of habitual offender proceedings does not evidence prejudice against the defendant
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoberts was convicted in his first trial of grand larceny and carrying a concealed weapon, and in a separate trial of burglary. Based on his prior con…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Enhanced Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, James Theodore Roberts, was found guilty of grand larceny and carrying a concealed weapon at the conclusion of his first trial. Later, he was found guilty of burglary in a separate trial. The trial court then sentenced Roberts, based upon prior convictions, to an enhanced sentence on the burglary and grand larceny charges pursuant to the Florida Habitual Felony Offender Act, Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1975). The judgment and sentence in each case have been appealed and the appeals consolidated for consideration in this court. The main thrust of these appeals is that the trial judge erred in sentencing Roberts as an “habitual felony offender” under Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1975). It is argued that the trial judge, because he initiated the proceedings, was prima facie prejudiced against the appellant. This argument simply does not follow because a trial judge has an obligation to see that the proper sentence is imposed. See, e. g., § 775.084(4)(a), Fla.Stat. (1975).
It is also urged that the procedure employed in proving the identity of Roberts was improper. While we do not approve of this procedure, we find that the appellant has failed to show any illegality or prejudice from the use of such a procedure, which was employed merely to prove his identity as the person previously convicted. See Anderson v. State, 297 So. 2d 871, 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).
We have examined the appellant’s points directed to the admission of certain evidence and the failure to grant a judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence on the charge of grand larceny, and we find that neither point presents error on this record. The appellant’s point directed to the failure of the court to discharge him under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191 is not well taken because both the State and the defendant obtained continuances, and inasmuch as the date of the State’s last continuance was ninety days prior to the trial in this case, no error is shown in the denial of the motion.
The appellant’s contention that he was entitled to a directed verdict on the grand larceny charge is not sustained by the record in that the explanation given of the circumstantial evidence is not a reasonable explanation. Note the principle of law in Brannen v. State, 94 Fla. 656, 114 So. 429, 430-431 (1927).
Two other points presented have been examined and found not to present error. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Steiner v. State, 591 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…he notice issuing from the trial court is also questionable. The far better practice would be for such a notice to originate from the state.2 However, section 775.084(3)(b) is silent as to who is entitled to issue the notice. Also, Roberts v. State, 371 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), held that a trial judge could properly issue the notice. In the absence of express legislative intent to the contrary, I would not conflict with Roberts in a case where that issue has not been raised below or in this court. IV.…
-
Williams v. State, 421 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ense, and the delay in retrying the defendant within ninety days1 following a mistrial was a direct result of defense counsel’s involvement in trying another case. State v. Belcher, 372 So. 2d 546 (Fla.3d DCA 1979) and cases cited; Roberts v. State, 371 So. 2d 538 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); State v. McCoy, 369 So. 2d 1027 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. . Commencement of the retrial was less than one month subsequent to the expiration of ninety…
-
Tarpley v. State, 605 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…[*911] PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED on the authority of Toliver v. State, 605 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), King v. State, 557 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 564 So. 2d 1086 (Fla.1990), and Roberts v. State, 371 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). GOSHORN, C.J., and W. SHARP and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Raiford Brannen v. State, 94 Fla. 656 (Fla. 1927)
- Anderson v. State, 297 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)