ANTHONY T. WRIGHT AND HENRY WASHINGTON, PETITIONERS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
A trial court is not required to instruct the jury on the possible imposition of an enhanced sentence for reasons personal to the defendant when requested pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.390(a).
Wright and Washington were charged with burglary, convicted, and received an enhanced sentence. They appealed, claiming the trial court erred in refus…
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
McDONALD, Judge.
We have for review Wright v. State, 428 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), which poses the following question certified to be of great public importance:
Must a trial court instruct the jury of the possible imposition, for reasons personal to a defendant, of a greater sentence than that statutorily specified for a crime, when such instruction is requested pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.390[ (a) ].
Id. at 748. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution. We answer the question in the negative and approve the district court’s decision.
An information charged Wright and Washington with burglary of a conveyance. The jury convicted them in a joint trial, and each received an enhanced sentence of ten years in prison. On appeal they claimed that the trial court erred in refusing their request that the jury be told the maximum enhanced penalty could be ten years. The district court found that the trial court had properly refused to give the requested instruction because Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390(a) and Tascano v. State, 393 So. 2d 540 (Fla.1980), require only an instruction on the statutory minimum and maximum sentences for the offense for which the accused is on trial.
We hold that rule 3.390(a) and Tascano do not require that the jury be informed of a possible enhanced maximum sentence. We therefore answer the certified question in the negative and approve the district court’s decision.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J, and BOYD, OVER-TON, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Torres v. State, 474 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ecord and the remedy offered was an adequate response to the discovery violation, we find no error. See Miller v. State, 435 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Wright v. State, 428 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), approved on separate certified question, 446 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1984); State v. Bowers, 422 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Torres’s second contention is that he is entitled to a new trial because the transcript of the hearing on a motion to suppress his statement is unavailable. The circumstances surrounding…
-
State v. Rosario, 303 So. 3d 555 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…ate, 579 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Wright v. State, 428 So. 2d 746, 748–49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (finding allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are reviewable on direct appeal if sufficiently raised in motion for new trial), approved, 446 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1984). Second, trial courts have the authority to grant a new trial sua sponte, when justified. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.580 (“When a verdict has been rendered against the defendant or the defendant has been found guilty by the court, the court…
Authorities Cited
- Tascano v. State, 393 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1980)
- Wright v. State, 428 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)