RONALD WATTS, 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 court affirmed the conviction for obtaining property in return for a worthless check but remanded for resentencing because the trial court failed to make required factual findings to support habitual offender status.
The appellant was convicted of obtaining property for a worthless check. The trial court enhanced the sentence based on habitual offender status witho…
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 Habitual Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
Ronald Watts appeals from his judgment and sentence for obtaining property in return for a worthless check. He argues that the state failed to prove an element of the offense and that the trial court erred in imposing a sentence which exceeds the statutory maximum based on a finding that the appellant is a habitual offender. We affirm the appellant’s conviction but remand for resentencing.
We find no merit in the appellant’s first argument. At trial the state sufficiently proved the elements of the offense by introducing the testimony of a sales person that the appellant was given merchandise in return for a check and that the appellant’s account had insufficient funds to cover the check. Therefore, we affirm the judgment finding the appellant guilty of the offense.
The appellant’s scoresheet reflected a recommended sentence of twenty-two to twenty-seven years. The trial court found that the appellant met the requirements of the habitual offender statute and imposed a sentence of ten years’ imprisonment exceeding the statutory maximum of five years. On the appellant’s written sentence the trial court noted that the appellant’s penalty was enhanced “on the grounds that the protection of the public requires it,” but the court made no factual findings to support its conclusion as required by Florida Statute section 775.084(3)(d). See Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1980); Smith v. Wainwright, 508 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court so that it may lend factual support for its findings under the habitual offender statute.
Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded with directions.
DANAHY, C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 557 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…(Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Brown v. State, 497 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Little v. State, 440 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Second, the trial judge failed to provide independent written reasons for the departure sentence ordered. See Watts v. State, 525 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Accordingly, the defendant’s sentence is vacated and the case is remanded to allow the trial court to sentence the defendant based upon the appropriate findings and reasons.…
-
Thompson v. State, 557 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), and because the sentence was not accompanied by written reasons — apart from the insufficient ground of habitual offender status — which justify the departure. Davis v. State, 557 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Watts v. State, 525 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Accordingly, the sentence is reversed and the cause is remanded for appropriate re-sentencing.…
Authorities Cited
- Fredford James Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1980)
- Smith v. Louie L. Wainwright, 508 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)