CLEVELAND ROBERTS AND IVEY DAVIS, APPELLANTS,
v.
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.
The court held that the record amply supported the enhanced sentence, even if the trial judge's findings were conclusionary.
Appellants were convicted, and the sentence of one appellant, Roberts, was reversed by the majority. The dissent argues Roberts' enhanced sentence was…
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
[*1365] PER CURIAM.
Roberts and Davis appeal their convictions for burglary. Roberts, who was sentenced as an habitual felon pursuant to Section 775.084 Florida Statutes (1979), also appeals his sentence. We affirm their convictions but reverse Roberts’ sentence and remand for resentencing.
Before the trial court may sentence a party as an habitual felon, the court must find the extended sentence necessary for the protection of the public from further criminal activity. This finding must include “the underlying facts and circumstances which the trial judge relied on in making that finding.” Adams v. State, 376 So. 2d 47, 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Neither the trial court’s order nor the transcript of the sentencing proceeding specify the facts on which the trial court relied. Accordingly, we reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and LARRY G. SMITH, J., concur. JOANOS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.
JOANOS, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority’s opinion in their affirming the convictions of appellants but dissent in their reversing of Roberts’ sentence.
The situation involved in this matter is essentially the same as that involved in McClain v. State, 356 So. 2d 1256 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). As in this case, the trial judge in McClain made the finding that an enhanced sentence as provided under § 775.-084, Florida Statutes, was necessary for the protection of the public but did not articulate the facts supporting that conclusion. In reviewing the enhanced sentence, that Court said:
Turning to the instant case, we note that the judge made conclusionary findings by tracking the statutory language. It would have been helpful if he had outlined specific reasons for concluding that the sentencing of the appellant to an extended term was necessary for the protection of the public. However, the record in this case amply supports the ultimate conclusion, because the evidence concerning appellant’s prior criminal record reflects that he has been engaged in a lifetime of crime. Since the findings required by the statute are fully supported in this record, the judge was at liberty to impose the extended sentence. 356 So. 2d at 1257.
The same situation is set forth in the case before us, “... the record in this case amply supports the ultimate conclusion .... ” The record reflects inter alia that Roberts was three times previously convicted of a felony and that he was on parole at the time he committed the crime in this case. That alone is sufficient to support the enhanced sentence permitted under the statute.
Adams v. State, 376 So. 2d 47, 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) is relied upon by the majority. That case is not applicable here for the reason that in Adams the record reflected that the trial judge in ordering the enhanced sentence may have relied upon hearsay evidence which was disputed. No such question is involved here.
The orders appealed from should be AFFIRMED in total.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Watson v. State, 492 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…habitual offender with necessary findings of fact by the court’ does not comply with State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985).” Reasons orally stated at a sentencing hearing do not fulfill the purpose of 3.701(d)(ll). See also Roberts v. State, 402 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So. 2d 469 (Fla.1982). Therefore, the sentence is reversed and remanded to the trial court to either forego sentencing under the habitual offender statute or reimpose such a sentence after making a finding on…
-
Bennie Lee Walker v. State, 442 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…. 2d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Walker contends merely that the underlying facts and circumstances justifying the sentence were not stated by the trial court as required by statute. Adams v. State, 376 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Roberts v. State, 402 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). To preserve this procedural error on appeal, it was necessary that Walker object in the trial court. Sawyer, supra; Alexander, supra; McFadden v. State, 423 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Smith v. State, 378 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 5t…
Authorities Cited
- Ulysses Adams, Jr. v. State, 376 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- McCLAIN v. State, 356 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)