WILLIE MITCHELL, 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 appellate court reversed a conviction and sentence due to the trial court's failure to follow proper procedures for habitual offender sentencing and for imposing an illegal sentence on a trespass conviction. The case is remanded for resentencing.
Yes, the trial court erred by not following the statutory procedures for habitual offender sentencing. Yes, the sentence for trespass was illegal as it exceeded the statutory maximum.
[1] A trial court must strictly follow the statutory procedures and make necessary factual findings before sentencing a defendant under the habitual offender statute.
[2] A conviction for simple trespass of a structure or conveyance, without additional aggravating factors, is a second-degree misdemeanor.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“It is clear from the record that the trial court failed to follow the statutory procedures and make the necessary findings.”
Establishes the court's finding of procedural error in habitual offender sentencing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted by a jury of trespass and possession of a burglary tool. The state sought enhanced penalties under the habitual offender statu…
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
PER CURIAM.
This is a timely appeal from a conviction and sentence after a jury trial in which appellant was found guilty of the lesser-included offense of trespass on count I and guilty of possession of a burglary tool in count II. Count I had originally been charged as attempted burglary of a dwelling. Prior to appellant’s trial, the state filed notice of intent to seek enhanced penalties under the habitual offender statute should defendant be found guilty.
Sections 775.084(l)(a), (3), and (4), Florida Statutes (1987), contain the pertinent provisions of the habitual offender statute.
Sections 775.084(3) and (4), in particular, set forth the procedure that the trial court must follow, as well as the necessary finding of facts, as a prerequisite to sentencing a defendant under this section. It is clear from the record that the trial court failed to follow the statutory procedures and make the necessary findings. We must therefore reverse as to point I. Appellant’s second point alleges error in the trial court’s sentence on count I, the trespass, wherein he was sentenced to one year in jail.
Sections 810.08(1), (2)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), provide that trespass of a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the second degree.
We note that if appellant had been charged and convicted of trespass of a structure where a human being is present, or armed trespass, the offense would become a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable by up to one year in jail.
However, appellant was not charged with this offense. Since the maximum punishment for the crime of which appellant was convicted is sixty days in jail, we must reverse on point II as well.
This cause is reversed and remanded for resentencing on both counts, and should the state elect again to seek an habitual offender sentence, the trial court must follow the procedure and make the necessary findings as outlined in sections 775.084(3) and (4), Florida Statutes (1987).
DELL, WALDEN and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bertram King v. State, 580 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. We reverse appellant’s habitual offender sentence on the authority of Mitchell v. State, 547 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) and remand for resentencing. The trial judge failed to make factual findings required by section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1987). At the resentencing, the trial court may again consider whether the habitual offender statute shou…