JAMES WILLIE SIMS, 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.
James Willie Sims appeals his convictions and sentences for burglary and petit theft, challenging the enhanced sentence imposed as a habitual offender. The court finds that the trial judge's findings were insufficient to support the enhancement and remands for resentencing, while affirming the underlying convictions.
The trial court's findings were insufficient to support the enhanced sentence. The mere mention of prior convictions and reference to continuing criminal activity, without additional analysis or specific findings of fact, do not satisfy the statutory requirement. The court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
[1] An enhanced sentence under section 775.084(3)(d), Florida Statutes, requires the trial court to make specific findings of fact demonstrating that an extended sentence is…
[2] General statements regarding a defendant's prior convictions or "continuing criminal activity" are insufficient to support an enhanced sentence without additional analysi…
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 make specific findings of fact that show on their face that an enhanced sentence is necessary to protect the public from defendant's further criminal conduct”
Establishes the standard for reviewing enhanced sentences under section 775.084(3)(d)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a jury trial, Sims was convicted of burglary of an unoccupied motor vehicle (a third degree felony) and petit theft. At sentencing, the judg…
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 Specific Findings Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
James Willie Sims appeals his judgments and sentences for burglary and petit theft. We find merit in two of the three points he raises on appeal.
Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of burglary and petit theft. At sentencing, the judge found appellant to be an habitual offender and sentenced him to serve ten years in prison. The judge enhanced appellant’s sentence on the basis that he “is a habitual felon and that he’s been twice previously convicted of the same type crime.” The judge also stated that “sentencing, enhanced sentencing is necessary for the protection of the public because of his continuing criminal activity.”
Appellant’s first contention is that these findings are insufficient to support an enhanced sentence under section 775.-084(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1983). He is correct.
Section 775.084(3) provides in pertinent part that:
In a separate proceeding, the' court shall determine if it is necessary for the protection of the public to sentence the defendant to an extended term ... and if the defendant is an habitual felony offender or an habitual misdemeanant ...
(d) Each of the findings required as the basis for such sentence shall be found to exist by a preponderance of the evidence....
The courts of this state have consistently construed this language as requiring that the trial court make specific findings of fact that show on their face that an enhanced sentence is necessary to protect the public from defendant’s further criminal conduct. See, e.g., Walker v. State, 462 So. 2d 452, 454 (Fla.1985); Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219, 226 (Fla.1980); Cavallaro v. State, 420 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
Recently, we held that where the judge enhanced the defendant’s sentence based “on the record and presentence investigation,” such did not constitute the specific findings of fact contemplated by section 775.084(3). Berry v. State, 484 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Likewise in Fleming v. State, 480 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), and Wright v. State, 476 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), general statements regarding the applicability of the habitual offender statute and the defendant’s failure to learn from past experience were found to be insufficient to justify enhanced sentences.
Here, the court’s mere mention of appellant’s two prior convictions for the same type crime does not, on its face, show that the public is at risk absent an extended sentence. Moreover, reference to appellant’s “continuing criminal activity” is inadequate without additional analysis or findings of fact in support. See Berry. Compare White v. State, 481 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), where we held the judge made sufficient findings to support an enhanced sentence in analyzing the defendant’s conduct and noting that it demonstrated a conscious pattern of lawlessness.
Next, appellant correctly points out that he was convicted of burglary of an unoccupied motor vehicle, which is a third degree felony in violation of section 810.02(3), Florida Statutes (1983). However, the written judgment omits reference to the degree of appellant’s burglary conviction. We, therefore, remand for correction of the written judgment to show that appellant’s burglary conviction is a third degree felony.
We find no merit to appellant’s third point on appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s convictions for burglary and petit theft but vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.
HALL and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cahill v. State, 489 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…nal activity.” This is not a sufficient reason to retain jurisdiction over the jail sentence of a criminal defendant. It does not satisfy the requirement of section 947.-16(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), for individual particularity. Sims v. State, 487 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Wright v. State, 425 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Robinson v. State, 458 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We reverse for resentencing at which time the trial court will either relinquish its retention of jurisdiction over one-…
-
Hugger v. State, 496 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…ecifically that the trial court make findings of fact that demonstrate on their face that an extended sentence is necessary to protect the public from a defendant’s further criminal conduct. Walker v. State, 462 So. 2d 452 (Fla.1985); Sims v. State, 487 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Cavallaro v. State, 420 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). At sentencing, the trial court made the following determination: Mr. Hugger, in Case No. CF85-846, I have considered the presentence investigation and I’ve considered every…
-
Forrest v. State, 589 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…Bohannon (statement that “I do find from this appalling record, Mr. Bohannon, that you are a disgrace and I am, for the necessity of the protection of the public, sentencing you” as a habitual offender not enough), 546 So. 2d at 1082; Sims v. State, 487 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (mere statement that enhanced sentencing is necessary for protection of the public due to appellant’s continuing criminal activity not enough). Upon resentencing, the trial court may again habitualize appellant if it makes proper…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Bennie Lee Walker v. State, 462 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1985)
- Fleming v. State, 480 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Cleveland Wright v. State, 476 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Cavallaro v. State, 420 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- DCA Homes, Inc. v. City OF Miramar, 481 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Berry v. State, 484 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)