NORMAN DAUGHTRY, 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.
Norman Daughtry appeals his convictions and sentences for burglary, felony petit theft, and battery. The court affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing because the trial court improperly enhanced his sentences based on prior convictions that did not comply with statutory requirements under Florida law.
The convictions are affirmed, but the sentences must be vacated and remanded for resentencing because the trial court improperly relied on convictions that did not satisfy the statutory definition of qualifying prior convictions under section 812.014(2)(d) and section 775.084, Florida Statutes.
[1] A prior conviction for grand theft cannot be used to reclassify a subsequent petit theft offense as a felony when the statute requires a specific number of prior petit th…
[2] A defendant's prior convictions for grand theft are not legally sufficient to support habitual offender status based on a statute that requires prior convictions for peti…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In the interim between Daughtry's sentencing and the submission of his initial brief on appeal Hall has been disapproved by the supreme court, which applied a strict construction of section 812.014(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1987) ('... third or subsequent conviction for petit theft ... '). State v. Jackson, 526 So.2d 58 (Fla.1988). Accordingly, we must remand for resentencing.”
Establishes that the trial court's reliance on grand theft convictions as substitutes for petit theft convictions violated statutory requirements as clarified by the Florida Supreme Court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDaughtry was charged in two separate informations. In the first, he was convicted of taking merchandise from a Montgomery Ward store. The trial court …
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 Reclassification Of Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Norman Daughtry appeals his convictions and sentences for burglary, felony petit theft, and battery.* We affirm the convictions but remand for resentencing.
The first of two separate informa-tions alleged that Daughtry, “having twice previously been convicted of petit theft,” took merchandise of an unspecified value from a Montgomery Ward store in St. Pe-tersburg. A jury found Daughtry guilty as charged. At sentencing he objected to the use of two prior petit theft convictions, purportedly uncounseled, for reclassification of the offense to felony status. The state, citing this court’s decision in Hall v. State, 469 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), offered proof of six prior grand theft convictions in lieu of the challenged misdemeanors. The trial court found “a sufficient amount of adjudications ... because grand theft is just as bad as petty [sic] theft.” It went on to declare Daughtry a habitual offender pursuant to section 775.-084, Florida Statutes (1987), thereby increasing the maximum possible sentence to ten years.,
In the interim between Daughtry’s sentencing and the submission of his initial brief on appeal Hall has been disapproved by the supreme court, which applied a strict construction of section 812.014(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1987) (“... third or subsequent conviction for petit theft ... ”). State v. Jackson, 526 So. 2d 58 (Fla.1988). Accordingly, we must remand for resentencing.
In the second information Daughtry was charged with burglary of a structure and battery, to which he entered a plea of no contest. Again the court found that Daughtry qualified as a habitual offender, based on “one of the more impressive records this court has ever seen,” and imposed a sentence of ten years concurrent with the sentence for theft. Daughtry argues that the court’s findings of fact in support of the enhanced sentence are legally insufficient. We agree and, again, remand for a new sentencing hearing. See, e.g., Scott v. State, 446 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and DANAHY and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur. *
The conviction and sentence for battery are not contested on appeal, and are affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Jackson, 526 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 1988)
- Scott v. State, 446 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Hall v. State, 469 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)