HARRY NELSON CORBIN, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a defendant's enhanced sentences as an habitual felony offender, holding that the trial court's findings were sufficient despite not using the exact statutory language for necessity. The case clarifies that substantial compliance with the statute is acceptable.
No, the trial court's findings were sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements for sentencing as an habitual felony offender. The court's explicit findings demonstrated an intent to treat Corbin as an habitual offender and implicitly satisfied the necessity requirement.
[1] A trial court satisfies the statutory requirement to find that enhanced sentences are necessary for the protection of the public when the court's findings of fact demonst…
[2] A trial court's reiteration of previous findings at the conclusion of sentencing can satisfy the requirement for imposing enhanced sentences as an habitual felony offende…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We hold that these findings of fact were an adequate basis to satisfy the requirements of section 775.084(3)(d).”
Establishes the court's conclusion that the trial court's findings were sufficient.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarry Nelson Corbin was convicted of burglary and grand theft and sentenced as an habitual felony offender. He appealed, arguing the trial court faile…
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
GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.
Harry Nelson Corbin appeals his convictions for burglary of a dwelling and grand theft and his enhanced sentences of twenty years and ten years as an habitual felony offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1981).
Corbin contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him as an habitual offender without first finding that his sentences were “necessary for the protection of the public from further criminal activity by the defendant” as required by section 775.-084(4)(a). Corbin does not dispute the facts and circumstances underlying his enhanced sentences. He merely asserts that the court must repeat the exact statutory language prior to imposing sentence.
Before announcing the sentence the court carefully followed the procedure set forth in section 775.084(3) and made the findings contemplated by section 775.-084(1). At the conclusion of sentencing, when the state attorney requested a finding that the enhanced sentences were necessary for the protection of the public, the court responded by reiterating its previous findings. The court had obviously focused upon the requisite statutory provisions and intended that Corbin be treated as an habitual offender. We hold that these findings of fact were an adequate basis to satisfy the requirements of section 775.084(3)(d). Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1980); Cavallaro v. State, 420 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Lee v. State, 410 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). The findings show on their face that an extended term was necessary for the protection of the public from further criminal activity by the defendant. § 775.084(4)(a). We do not read Little v. State, 440 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) as mandating reversal solely because of a failure to recite the “magic words.” Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the court properly complied with the statutory requirements.
We have considered Corbin’s remaining two points and find them to be without merit.
AFFIRMED.
SCHEB and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fredford James Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1980)
- Cavallaro v. State, 420 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Little v. State, 440 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- LEE v. State, 410 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)