DAVID E. KING, PETITIONER,
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.
The determination of a defendant as a habitual felony offender pursuant to section 775.084 is not a sufficient reason for departure from the recommended range of the sentencing guidelines.
The district court upheld departure from the presumptive guideline sentence based on the defendant's habitual offender status. The court certified a q…
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 Departure From Presumptive Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
EHRLICH, Justice.
We review King v. State, 494 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), in which the district court upheld departure from the presumptive guideline sentence based on King’s habitual offender status, under section 775.-084, Florida Statutes (1985), and certified the following question as being of great public importance:
IS THE DETERMINATION OF A DEFENDANT AS A HABITUAL FELONY OFFENDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 775.084 A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR DEPARTURE FROM THE RECOMMENDED RANGE OF THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES?
Id. at 291. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. In our recent decision Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1986), we held that “section 775.084 cannot operate as an alternative to guidelines sentencing.... Nor can the habitual offender statute remain viable as a reason for departure....” Slip op at 6.
Accordingly, on the authority of Whitehead, we answer the certified question in the negative and quash the decision below. Because the trial court used the habitual offender statute as its reason to depart from the guidelines in sentencing King, we remand with directions to the district court to return the matter to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
MCDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
King v. State, 520 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…es sentencing ... nor can the habitual offender statute remain viable as a reason for departure_” The supreme court remanded with directions that the case be returned to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with its opinion. King v. State, 502 So. 2d 1243 (Fla.1987). Upon resentencing, the trial court again departed from the sentencing guidelines and gave four new reasons for departure. [*311] The appellant argues that the trial court’s reasons for departure at resentenc-ing are invalid. We need not…
Authorities Cited
- Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)
- King v. State, 494 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)