ALVIN TONY SCOTT, 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 court held that the trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact to support the enhanced sentence under the habitual offender statute.
Defendant was convicted of grand theft and burglary and received an enhanced sentence. The trial court's justifications for the enhanced sentence were…
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
SCHEB, Judge.
Defendant Alvin Tony Scott was found guilty of grand theft and burglary. The trial court imposed an enhanced sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment.
We have examined the three points that defendant raises on appeal and find only one 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). Defendant is correct on that point.
The court only made two statements justifying the enhanced sentence. In the first, the court merely ruled that based on the defendant’s record and the particular facts of the case, it was necessary for the public’s protection to treat the defendant as a subsequent felony offender. In the second, when informed that a drug program was willing to accept the defendant, the court felt such a program was inappropriate, because the defendant had not been honest with the court.
Pursuant to section 775.084(3)(d), the 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 for a new sentencing hearing. Prior to the hearing, the state should give written notice of its intention to seek sentencing as an habitual offender, and the defendant is entitled to be present at the hearing.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Roberts v. State, 559 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…nders under section 775.084(4)(e) bears no reasonable relationship to the object of the habitual offender legislation which is to provide additional protection to the public from persons from whom additional protection is needed. See Scott v. State, 446 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). See also King v. State, 557 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). As the state points out, habitual offenders are still entitled to incentive gain time under section 775.-084(4)(e). Affirmed in part and remanded for proceedings consis…
-
Hampton v. State, 764 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…have held that such a generalized conclusion, without specific supporting facts, indicating that “the defendant’s record” supports an enhanced sentence, is not sufficient. See, e.g., Berry v. State, 484 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Scott v. State, 446 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Cf. Overton v. State, 429 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (trial court adequately justified retention of jurisdiction by including specific observations and enumerating defendant’s offenses). Because the challenged findings are no…
-
Fleming v. State, 480 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…ty for an extended term of imprisonment in order to protect the public from recidivistic conduct. Id. at 326. The trial court’s conclusory statements expressed at the sentencing hearing, however, did not fulfill this 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 wit…
Previewing 3 of 15 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)
- Cavallaro v. State, 420 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)