FREDDIE R. TAYLOR, 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.
Freddie Taylor appealed his conviction for armed burglary and attempted aggravated assault, challenging his 15-year departure sentence. The court affirmed the conviction but reversed the departure sentence, finding that the trial court improperly based the departure on the state's agreement not to seek habitual offender status, which was invalidated by the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Whitehead v. State.
The court affirmed the conviction but reversed the departure sentence and remanded for resentencing. The court held that habitual offender status cannot provide a valid basis for a guidelines departure, and that a defendant and state cannot by agreement confer authority on the court to impose an illegal sentence based on this factor.
[1] A trial court errs in departing from sentencing guidelines based solely on the state's agreement not to seek habitual offender status in exchange for a sentence outside t…
[2] A defendant cannot by agreement confer on the court the authority to impose an illegal sentence.
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 considered as providing an exemption for a guidelines sentence," and habitual offender status is not a valid reason for imposition of a departure sentence”
Establishes the legal principle that habitual offender status cannot serve as grounds for sentencing departures
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTaylor was charged with armed burglary of a structure and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A jury found him guilty of armed burglary and the l…
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 Armed Burglary cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of his conviction for armed burglary and attempted aggravated assault and his 15-year departure sentence. He raises several points on appeal. We find merit only in appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in departing from the sentencing guidelines on the basis of the state’s agreement not to seek habitual offender status in exchange for sentencing outside the guidelines. We affirm the conviction, but reverse and remand for resentencing.
Appellant was charged with one count of armed burglary of a structure, in violation of section 810.07 and 810.02(2), Florida Statutes, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of sec tion 784.021(l)(a), Florida Statutes. After a jury found him guilty of the armed burglary charge and the lesser included offense of attempted aggravated assault, appellant apparently agreed to be sentenced outside the sentencing guidelines in exchange for the state’s agreement not to seek habitual offender sentencing. The recommended guidelines range was 9-12 years incarceration. In accordance with the agreement, the trial court sentenced appellant to 15 years incarceration. Following sentencing, the supreme court in Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1987) held that the habitual offender statute “cannot be considered as providing an exemption for a guidelines sentence,” and habitual offender status is not a valid reason for imposition of a departure sentence. Id. at 865, 866. A defendant may agree to a departure sentence, but he “cannot by agreement confer on the court the authority to impose an illegal sentence.” Williams v. State, 500 So. 2d 501, 503 (Fla. 1986). In this case it appears that the sole inducement for appellant’s agreement to the departure sentence was the threat of a sentence pursuant to the habitual offender status.
Accordingly, we reverse the departure sentence and remand the case for resentencing.
BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trott v. State, 579 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…State, 527 So. 2d 1380 (Fla.1988); Smith v. State, 530 So. 2d 304 (Fla.1988)) it will not support an illegal sentence. Williams v. State, 500 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1986), receded from on other grounds, Quarterman v. State, supra; see also Taylor v. State, 512 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (defendant may agree to departure, but cannot by agreement confer on court authority to impose illegal sentence). It is equally well established that an illegal sentence can be corrected without a contemporaneous objection. Whitf…
-
Rowe v. State, 523 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…alidate the principal reason [*622] employed by Rowe's trial judge to exceed the guidelines. We do note that, again, the first district appears to offer some support for Rowe’s arguments regarding the lawfulness of his sentence. In Taylor v. State, 512 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), the defendant, prior to the Whitehead decision, was convicted of armed burglary and the state threatened to invoke the habitual offender act. Rather than face the possibility of a life sentence Taylor agreed to accept a fifteen-…
Authorities Cited
- Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)
- Williams v. State, 500 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1986)