RICHARD WILLIE HUGGER, 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.
Richard Hugger appeals his life sentence imposed as a habitual offender following conviction for second-degree murder. The appellate court vacates the sentence because the trial court failed to make the specific findings of fact required by Florida's habitual offender statute to justify an enhanced sentence.
The trial court's findings lacked the requisite specificity required by the habitual offender statute. The court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing with proper statutory findings.
[1] A trial court must make specific findings of fact to support an enhanced sentence under the habitual offender statute.
[2] Findings of fact supporting an enhanced sentence must demonstrate on their face that an extended sentence is necessary to protect the public from a defendant's further cr…
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 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”
Establishes the legal requirement for habitual offender sentencing under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHugger was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual offender. The state provided written notice of its inten…
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 Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
Appellant appeals his sentence resulting from a conviction for second-degree murder. Appellant has raised several issues on appeal, but merit is found only in the allegation that the trial court failed to make findings of fact in support of an enhanced sentence as required by the habitual offender statute. § 775.084(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1985).
The state, pursuant to section 775.-084(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), served written notice on appellant of its intention to have him declared a habitual offender. The habitual offender statute requires specifically 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 everything that I’ve heard here today, and I have also gone over in my own mind the facts and circumstances of the case as I heard it at the jury trial.
And it’s going to be my finding that you ought to be sentenced as a habitual felony offender and I specifically make a finding that you’ve previously been convicted of a felony in this state within the time period as set out in Chapter 775.084. And I also specifically find that it will be — that it’s necessary for the protection of the public from further criminal activity on your part that your sentence be enhanced. Thereafter, appellant was sentenced outside the recommended guidelines sentence of fifteen years and given life in prison.
We believe that the foregoing statement lacked the requisite specificity to justify the enhancing of appellant’s sentence. See Berry v. State, 484 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Scott v. State, 446 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). It may be that matters contained in the presentence investigation and pertinent facts developed at the trial would demonstrate the heed for departure, but these were not enumerated. Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s conviction but vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing. Any effort to resentence appellant as a habitual offender should be accompanied by the findings required by the statute.
DANAHY, C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 562 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…y in order to protect the public from the defendant’s further criminal conduct. A mere conclusory statement such as given by the trial court in this case is not sufficient. Pugh v. State, 547 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). See also Hugger v. State, 496 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). We, accordingly, vacate the appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing. The trial court may reconsider application of the habitual offender statute upon resentencing, but in the event he applies the statute, he must make th…
Authorities Cited
- Bennie Lee Walker v. State, 462 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1985)
- Scott v. State, 446 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Cavallaro v. State, 420 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Sims v. State, 487 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Berry v. State, 484 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)