JOSEPH CAVALLARO, APPELLANT,
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.
Appellant's grand theft conviction affirmed, but enhanced sentence vacated because trial court failed to make required findings of fact under the habitual offender statute.
A trial court must make specific findings of fact demonstrating that an extended term of imprisonment is necessary to protect the public from further criminal conduct when imposing an enhanced sentence under the habitual offender statute.
[1] A trial court imposing an enhanced sentence under the habitual offender statute must make specific findings of fact demonstrating that an extended term of imprisonment is…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the trial court must make findings of fact that demonstrate on their face that an extended term of imprisonment is necessary to protect the public from a defendant's further criminal conduct”
Court explaining the statutory requirement for enhanced sentences under section 775.084(3)(d)
Appellant was convicted of grand theft and sentenced to ten years under the career criminal statute. The trial court's only justification was a genera…
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 Findings Of Fact Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
Appellant was found guilty of grand theft and was given an enhanced sentence of ten years.
Appellant raises two points on appeal, only one of which has merit. He contends the trial court failed to make findings of fact in support of the enhanced sentence as required by the habitual offender statute, section 775.084(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1981). We agree.
The only statements made by the court in justifying the enhanced sentence were the following:
I find that you are within the purview of the career criminal statute and adjudicate you to be so. Joseph, I don’t know what prompted you to do what you did, but you are now a career criminal and society has the right to do with you accordingly.
Pursuant to section 775.084(3)(d), the trial court must make findings of fact that demonstrate on their face that an extended term of imprisonment is necessary to protect the public from a defendant’s further criminal conduct. Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1980); Lawson v. State, 409 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). See also Lee v. State, 410 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). In the instant case, the judge failed to make specific findings of fact sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 775.-084(3)(d).
Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s conviction, but vacate his sentence and remand this case for a new sentencing hearing at which appellant is entitled to be present.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scott v. State, 446 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…he trial court must make findings of fact that demonstrate on their face an extended term of imprisonment is necessary to protect the public from a defendant’s further criminal conduct. Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1980); Cavallaro v. State, 420 So. 2d 927 (Fla.2d DCA 1982). In the instant case, the judge failed to make specific findings of fact sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 775.084(3)(d). Accordingly, we affirm defendant's conviction but vacate his sentence and remand this case…
-
Fleming v. State, 480 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…is requirement. See Scott v. State, 446 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (trial court merely stated that based on the defendant’s record and the particular facts of the case an enhanced sentence was necessary to protect the public); Cavallaro v. State, 420 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (trial court without elaboration stated that the defendant was a career criminal). We recognize that the subsidiary evidence indicating that an enhanced sentence is necessary to protect the public may in certain circumstances, not…
-
Little v. State, 440 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…tection of the public from further criminal activity by the appellant or, if the record fails to support such a finding, to vacate the habitual offender sentences. Brown v. State, 435 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (on rehearing); Cavallaro v. State, 420 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Sentence reversed and remanded with directions.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fredford James Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1980)
- LEE v. State, 410 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Lawson v. State, 409 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)