CHARLES PRIESTER, 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 habitual felony offender statute remains valid for imposing sentences exceeding the statutory maximum for the underlying crime, provided the sentence does not exceed the recommended guidelines.
Appellant was placed on probation for burglary, found guilty of violating probation, and sentenced as an habitual felony offender to ten years. This s…
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 Statutory Maximum Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant was placed on probation for burglary of a structure, a third degree felony. Thereafter, he was found guilty of violating his probation and the state filed notice of intent to request a sentence as an habitual felony offender. The trial court sentenced appellant as an habitual felony offender to a term of ten years, a sentence which exceeded the statutory maximum for the underlying crime, but which was within the recommended guidelines sentence.
Appellant contends on appeal that the Supreme Court of Florida, in Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1986), “repealed” the habitual felony offender statute and that it can no longer co-exist in this era of guideline sentencing.
We hold, as we did in King v. State, 511 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), that the habitual felony offender statute remains viable in order to impose a sentence greater than the maximum provided by statute for the particular crime involved as long as it does not exceed the maximum range of the recommended guidelines sentence. This same conclusion has been reached in the following cases from the first and second district courts of appeal: Smith v. Wainwright, 508 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Washington v. State, 508 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Hoefert v. State, 509 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Winters v. State, 500 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Myers v. State, 499 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), wherein the respective courts certified to the Supreme Court of Florida the following question as one of great public importance:
IS THE HABITUAL OFFENDER STATUTE STILL AN EFFECTIVE BASIS ON WHICH TO EXCEED THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM AS LONG AS THE SENTENCE IMPOSED DOES NOT EX CEED THE GUIDELINES. RECOMMENDATION?
As in King, we join those courts in certifying said question as one of great public importance.
Having considered all of appellant’s other contentions, we affirm the judgment and sentence appealed from.
HERSEY, C.J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Inscho v. State, 521 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…da Statutes. See McGriff v. State, 517 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); McMillan v. State, 516 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Wooten v. State, 515 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Johnson v. State, 513 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Priester v. State, 513 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Bellinger v. State, 513 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Sims v. State, 513 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Reid v. State, 512 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Condiles v. State, 512 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); King v. State, 511…
-
Wooten v. State, 515 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…85), so long as the resulting sentence is within the guidelines. Accord Johnson v. State, 513 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Bellinger v. State, 513 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Reid v. State, 512 So,2d 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Priester v. State, 513 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). On these holdings the sentence under review is reversed and the cause remanded for resentencing within the guidelines. As in Condiles, we certify this cause to the Supreme Court as involving the following question of great pub…
-
Stingray Jones v. State, 517 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…rt to resort to the habitual offender statute to enhance defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum as long as it remains within the recommended guidelines range. King v. State, 511 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). See also Priester v. State, 513 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). The remaining issue is whether the trial court improperly used the habitual offender statute to enhance appellant’s sentence beyond both the statutory penalty and the recommended guidelines range. A similar sentence was recently…
Authorities Cited
- Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)
- Myers v. State, 499 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Hoefert v. State, 509 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Winters v. State, 500 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Smith v. Louie L. Wainwright, 508 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- King v. State, 511 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Washington v. State, 508 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Tyner v. State, 508 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)