WILLIAM ARTHUR FRANKLIN, 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.
Franklin was convicted of robbery and sentenced as a habitual offender to 30 years, departing significantly from the guideline range of 9-12 years. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence, holding that the habitual offender statute cannot be used to depart from sentencing guidelines under Whitehead v. State.
The conviction is affirmed on all grounds. The hearsay claim lacks support in the record, the court's comments were not preserved for appeal and do not constitute fundamental error, and ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be raised for the first time on direct appeal. The sentence is reversed because the habitual offender statute cannot be used to depart from sentencing guidelines, and the trial court's reasons for departure lack clear and convincing support.
[1] A defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be raised for the first time on direct appeal.
[2] An appellate court will not consider trial court comments made in the presence of the jury if they were not objected to at trial and do not constitute fundamental error.
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 habitual offender statute cannot be used to depart from the sentencing guidelines”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that invalidated the trial court's sentencing departure in this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn October 8, 1983, Franklin and several companions requested a ride from Joseph Randall after leaving a grocery store. When Randall asked them to exi…
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 Clear And Convincing Reasons For Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant, Franklin, was convicted of robbery of Joseph Randall on October 8, 1983. On that date the evidence showed that, as Randall was leaving a grocery store a woman and several companions, including appellant, requested a ride. Appellant was seated behind Randall and, when they arrived at the passengers’ destination, Randall asked them to get out. Whereupon appellant grabbed Randall around the neck, punched him, and Randall gave up his wallet and fled. Appellant and the others took his car. On appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred in allowing the state to use hearsay evidence against appellant; that the court made impermissible comments in the presence of the jury, and that he had ineffective assistance of counsel.
We fail to find the referenced hearsay evidence in the record. Furthermore, the court’s comments complained about were not objected to at trial and so not preserved, nor do they constitute fundamental error. Finally, appellant’s contention that his trial counsel was ineffective cannot be raised for the first time on direct appeal. Perri v. State, 441 So. 2d 606 (Fla.1983).
The court requested counsel to submit supplemental briefs directed to the sentence imposed upon appellant. Those briefs showed that the guidelines sentence range involved here was nine to twelve years. However, the trial court sentenced appellant as an habitual offender to thirty years in prison. The written reasons therefor were:
The victim suffered physical injury and emotional trauma. The defendant’s criminal history demonstrates the need to protect the public. The defendant is a habitual offender. In Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1986), decided since the trial judge sentenced appellant, the supreme court held that the habitual offender statute cannot be used to depart from the sentencing guidelines. Furthermore, some of the court’s other reasons are not clear and convincing reasons for departure.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed and the sentence appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for resentencing according to law.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and remanded with directions.
ANSTEAD and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)
- Perri v. State, 441 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1983)