ELIJAH E. WHITE, 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.
Elijah White appealed his convictions for grand theft and resisting a police officer, challenging the trial court's departure from sentencing guidelines based on habitual offender status and disputing a conviction for which he was acquitted. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences but remanded to correct the written judgment to reflect the jury's acquittal on one charge.
The trial court made sufficient findings under section 775.084(3) to justify the enhanced sentence, as the judge analyzed the defendant's conduct and noted a conscious pattern of lawlessness. However, the written judgment must be corrected to eliminate the conviction for resisting a merchant's efforts to recover merchandise, as the jury acquitted White on that charge.
[1] Sentencing as an habitual offender constitutes a clear and convincing reason for departing from the sentencing guidelines.
[2] A trial court must make specific findings of fact to demonstrate that an extended prison term is necessary to protect the public from a defendant's further criminal condu…
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“sentencing as an habitual offender constitutes a clear and convincing reason for departing from the guidelines”
Establishes the legal standard for departing from sentencing guidelines based on habitual offender status
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury found defendant Elijah White guilty of grand theft and resisting a police officer without violence, but acquitted him of resisting a merchant's…
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 Sentencing Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
The state charged the defendant Elijah White with grand theft, resisting a police officer without violence, and resisting a merchant’s efforts to recover merchandise. A jury found the defendant guilty of the first two charges. The court then adjudicated the defendant guilty of grand theft and resisting a police officer. The trial judge sentenced the defendant to serve prison terms of ten years and sixty days, respectively. The sentences were to be served consecutively. In sentencing the defendant, the judge departed from the recommended sentence under the guidelines. The reason given for the departure was that the defendant was an habitual offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1983). See McCuiston v. State, 462 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (sentencing as an habitual offender constitutes a clear and convincing reason for departing from the guidelines). Defendant raises three points on appeal.
First, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to make the specific findings of fact required under the habitual offender statute to show that an extended prison term was necessary to protect the public from defendant’s further criminal conduct. § 775.084(3). Defendant relies on Scott v. State, 446 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), to support his position.
In Scott, the trial court merely stated that, based on the defendant’s record and the particular facts of the case, it was necessary to treat the defendant as a subsequent felony offender. We held that such findings did not satisfy the requirements of section 775.084(3). We find the present case distinguishable from Scott.
In concluding that an extended term of imprisonment was required for the protection of the public, the trial judge here analyzed the defendant’s conduct and noted that it demonstrated a conscious pattern of lawlessness. Thus, we hold that the trial judge in this case made sufficient findings to show that an enhanced sentence was necessary to protect the public.
Next, the defendant correctly points out that the record reveals that the jury acquitted him of the charge of resisting a merchant’s efforts to recover merchandise. Nevertheless, the written judgment reflects that the defendant was found guilty of this charge.
We find no merit to the remaining point raised by the defendant.
Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for correction of the written judgment to eliminate the conviction of resisting a merchant’s efforts to recover merchandise. Otherwise, the defendant’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Scott v. State, 446 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- McCUISTON v. State, 462 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)