FELIX RUIZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Habitual Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant’s conviction for attempted burglary of a dwelling is affirmed; however, the enhanced sentence imposed is reversed and vacated and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to resen-tence the defendant.
Prior to sentencing a defendant as an habitual felon, the court must find that the extended sentence is necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity, and the basis for this finding must appear in the record. See Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1980); Eichhorn v. State, 386 So. 2d 604 (Fla.5th DCA 1980); Ruiz v. State, 384 So. 2d 723 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Adams v. State, 376 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1st DCA 1979). Because the trial court did not specify the reasons why the habitual offender act, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1979), was being invoked, we reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scott v. State, 423 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…was enhanced pursuant to Section 775.084(4), Florida Statutes (1979) and is supported only by the oral finding that “this is necessary for the protection of society”, which finding is woefully short of what is required by the statute. Ruiz v. State, 407 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We reverse the enhanced portion of the sentence and remand for further findings and resentencing in accordance with this opinion. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.…
-
Brown v. State, 435 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…the cause is remanded to the trial court to make the requisite specific finding that such a sentence is necessary for the protection of the public from further criminal activity by the defendant, see § 775.084(4)(a), Fla.Stat. (1981); Ruiz v. State, 407 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), or if such a finding is not supported by the record, to vacate the habitual offender sentence. We recognize this sentencing error despite the defendant’s failure to preserve the issue below. See Gonzalez v. State, 392 So. 2d 334…
-
Johnson v. State, 472 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…fender statute was necessary for the protection of the public. Thus, this case must be remanded to the lower court for such a finding. See Walker v. State, 462 So. 2d 452 (Fla.1985); Little v. State, 440 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Ruiz v. State, 407 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Eichhorn v. State, 386 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Adams v. State, 376 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The second contention raised by the appellant is that the trial court did not have sufficient evidence on which to base a…
Authorities Cited
- Fredford James Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1980)
- Ulysses Adams, Jr. v. State, 376 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Ruiz v. State, 384 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Eichhorn v. State, 386 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)