HAMBY MCCASKILL, JR., 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.
Hamby McCaskill appeals his enhanced sentence as a habitual felony offender, arguing the trial court's findings were insufficient to support such sentencing. The court agrees, holding that a mere finding of the defendant's subjective attitude toward law enforcement is insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement that enhanced sentencing is necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity.
The trial court's finding was insufficient as a matter of law. A finding relating merely to the defendant's subjective attitude toward law enforcement does not satisfy the statutory requirement that the trial court make findings showing an extended sentence is necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity. The sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing.
[1] A trial court's finding of a defendant's defiance toward law enforcement officers is insufficient, as a matter of law, to support sentencing as a habitual offender.
[2] To sentence a felon as a habitual felony offender, the trial court must make findings of fact demonstrating that an extended term is necessary for the protection of the p…
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“the trial court must, inter alia, find that the imposition of sentence under section 775.084 is necessary for the protection of the public from further criminal activity by the defendant”
States the statutory requirement for habitual offender sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcCaskill was convicted of evidence tampering. At sentencing, the trial court took judicial notice of a 1981 robbery conviction for which McCaskill re…
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 Habitual Felony Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
McCaskill, convicted of evidence tampering, appeals his enhanced sentence as a habitual offender pursuant to section 775.-084, Florida Statutes (1981). Appellant argues that the findings of the trial court are insufficient as a matter of law to support sentencing as a habitual offender. We agree.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court took judicial notice of the fact that McCas-kill had been convicted for robbery in 1981 and sentenced to four years in prison. Additionally, testimony from three law enforcement officers was presented at the hearing. The officers’ testimony related to incidents of threats and verbal abuse directed at the officers by appellant. No other evidence was presented. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court sentenced appellant as a habitual felony offender, stating:
Well, the court is going to find that the State has carried its burden and the preponderance of the evidence will reflect that the defendant has a defiance toward law enforcement officers and it will be necessary for the protection of the public from further criminal activity of the defendant that he be sentenced as a habitual felony offender. Before a felon may be sentenced as a habitual felony offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes, the trial court must, inter alia, find that the imposition of sentence under section 775.084 is necessary for the protection of the public from further criminal activity by the defendant.
Section 775.084(3)(d) requires that the trial court make findings of fact that show on their face that an extended term is necessary to protect the public from defendant’s further criminal conduct. Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1980); Adams v. State, 376 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1st DCA 1979). In the instant case, the only finding made by the trial court was that “the defendant has a defiance towards law enforcement officers We think that this finding of fact, which relates merely to appellant’s subjective attitude, is insufficient to support a conclusion that an enhanced sentence is necessary for the protection of the public from further criminal activity.
The trial court did not find, nor does the record contain evidence to support a finding, that appellant attempted to carry out his threats or exhibited non-verbal behavior which necessitated the protection of the public.
Accordingly, appellant’s sentence is vacated, and this cause is remanded for resentencing not inconsistent with this opinion.
MILLS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
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)