ANTHONY WOOTEN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Trial court's ten-year sentence for second-degree grand theft exceeded the authorized maximum under the habitual offender statute despite falling within sentencing guidelines, requiring reversal and resentencing.
A trial court may not impose a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum for the underlying offense based on habitual offender status, even if the sentence falls within sentencing guidelines.
[1] A habitual offender statute may increase the statutory maximum sentence for an underlying felony only to the extent that the resulting sentence remains within the sentenc…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWooten, a habitual offender, was convicted of second-degree grand theft and sentenced to ten years, which is the maximum permissible for a habitual of…
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 Sentencing Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Based solely on the unchallenged finding that Wooten was a habitual offender, and notwithstanding the recommended guidelines range of 5-7½ years, the trial judge sentenced him to ten years for second degree grand theft. The ten year sentence, which is the maximum permissible for a habitual offender convicted of a third degree felony, § 775.084(4)(a)3, Fla.Stat. (1985), is unauthorized under Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1986). On the other hand, as in Condiles v. State, 512 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), we reject the defendant’s contention that the habitual offender statute may not be employed to increase the statutory limit for the crime in question, which in this case would otherwise be five years, see §§ 812.014(2)(b), 775.082(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1985), 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 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?
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cardinal Scott v. State, 519 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
-
Inscho v. State, 521 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…theless, that statute is viable to extend the general statutory máximums contained in section 775.082, Florida 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,…
-
Cowles v. State, 517 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…above the statutory maximum but below the presumptive range of the sentencing guidelines, has been dealt with by this court in Smith v. Wainwright, 508 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), adversely to the appellant’s contentions. Accord Wooten v. State, 515 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Myers v. State, 499 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Winters v. State, 500 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Because we have certified the question before us in previous cases presenting the same scenario, Hoefert v. State, 509 So.…
Authorities Cited
- Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)
- Isiah Bellinger v. State, 513 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Condiles v. State, 512 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Jones v. State, 512 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Priester v. State, 513 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Johnson v. State, 513 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)