CHARLES ROBERT BREWER, 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 habitual offender status alone is not a valid reason to depart from sentencing guidelines and that defendant was entitled to notice and a hearing before imposition of court costs.
Defendant was convicted of grand theft and burglary of a dwelling and sentenced as an habitual offender to twenty-year terms. The trial court also imp…
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 Notice And Opportunity To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
The defendant appeals his having been sentenced as an habitual offender and the imposition of court costs. We reverse.
Defendant was convicted of grand theft and burglary of a dwelling. The guidelines recommended sentence was nine to twelve years imprisonment, but the trial court found defendant to be an habitual offender and imposed concurrent twenty year terms, plus court costs of $200.
Habitual offender status is no longer a valid reason for departing from the sentencing guidelines. See Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1986). On remand the court should sentence defendant pursuant to the guidelines. The court may again depart from the guidelines if valid reasons are given. Donahue v. State, 502 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
Defendant had been found to be indigent and was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before the imposition of court costs. See Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984).
Defendant’s sentence is reversed and the cause is remanded for resentencing consistent with this opinion.
RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1987)…ial court on remand may again depart from the guidelines if the new reasons given existed at the time of the original sentencing and are valid reasons for departure. E.g., Brumley v. State, 512 So. 2d [*750] 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Brewer v. State, 502 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Mor-ganti v. State, 510 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Central Bell v. State, 500 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). But see Albury v. State, 503 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Wade v. State, 513 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Da…
-
Bryant v. State, 148 So. 3d 1251 (Fla. 2014)…again depart from the guidelines if the new reasons given both existed at the time [*1255] of the original sentencing and were valid reasons for departure. Id. at 749-50 (citing Brumley v. State, 512 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Brewer v. State, 502 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Morganti v. State, 510 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Central Bell v. State, 500 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). But see Albury v. State, 503 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Wade v. State, 513 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Dav…
-
Morganti v. State, 510 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…CA 1987); Avery v. State, 505 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Johnson v. State, 503 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The Second District appears also to have reached the same result. Smith v. State, 503 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Brewer v. State, 502 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Donahue v. State, 502 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Beahn v. State, 502 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The same also appears to be true with regard to the Fifth District. Frierson v. State, 511 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Onl…
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)
- Donahue v. State, 502 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)