MANUEL CONDILES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1987-09-15
No. 86-3184
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
512 So. 2d 331 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1987) Caution
Cited by 16 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

In affirming the sentence imposed below, we join our sister court in Myers v. State, 499 So. 2d 895, 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986),1 in holding that where, as here, the trial court “utilized the habitual offender statute to increase the length of sentence allowed by law and not to exceed the term of imprisonment recommended by the sentencing guidelines,” there is no conflict with Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1986), and the sentence is lawful. We certify the following question as being one of great public importance:

IS USE OF THE HABITUAL OFFENDER STATUTE TO EXCEED THE STATUTORILY PRESCRIBED MAXIMUM SENTENCE FOR THE OFFENSE PRECLUDED WHERE THE SENTENCE IMPOSED DOES NOT EXCEED THE RECOMMENDED GUIDELINE SENTENCE?

Affirmed

. Recently followed in Winters v. State, 500 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), and Hoefert v. State, 509 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). See also Smith v. Wainwright, 508 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Isiah Bellinger v. State, 513 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Mulvey v. State, 41 So. 2d 156 (Fla.1949); Myers v. State, 499 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). This case presents the same question certified in Condiles v. State, 512 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987): IS USE OF THE HABITUAL OFFENDER STATUTE TO EXCEED THE STATUTORILY PRESCRIBED MAXIMUM SENTENCE FOR THE OFFENSE PRECLUDED WHERE THE SENTENCE IMPOSED DOES NOT EXCEED THE RECOMMENDED GUIDELINE SENTENCE? Question certified.…
  • Cardinal Scott v. State, 519 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
    …2d 863 (Fla.1986), that the habitual offender statute may no longer be employed to enhance the statutory sentence for the substantive crime, which, in the present case of grand theft, is five years. We have held to the contrary in Condiles v. State, 512 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Wooten v. State, 515 So .2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Johnson v. State, 513 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); and Bellinger v. State, 513 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), and do so again. Accord Hoefert v. State, 509 So. 2d 1090 (Fla.…
  • McMILLAN v. State, 516 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
    …te have held that it is proper for the trial court to resort to the habitual offender statute to enhance a defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum, where the sentence does not exceed the recommended guidelines range. See Condiles v. State, 512 So. 2d 331 (Fla.3d DCA 1987); King v. State, 511 So. 2d 1131 (Fla.4th DCA 1987); Hoefert v. State, 509 So. 2d 1090 (Fla.2d DCA 1987); Smith v. Wainwright, 508 So. 2d 768 (Fla.2d DCA 1987); Winters v. State, 500 So. 2d 303 (Fla.1st DCA 1986). Here the sentence…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw