ROLANDO MORENO, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed convictions for drug possession but reversed sentences imposed under the Habitual Felony Offender Statute because the trial court failed to make specific findings of fact necessary to justify sentence enhancement, though such findings may be made orally on remand.
A trial court must make specific findings of fact on the record showing that an extended prison term is necessary to protect the public when enhancing a sentence under the Habitual Felony Offender Statute, but such findings may be made orally in open court rather than in writing.
[1] Under the Habitual Felony Offender Statute, a trial court must make specific findings of fact on the record demonstrating that an extended prison term is necessary to pro…
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 intelligence“the trial court upon remand may orally make the requisite findings of fact in open court on the record; such findings need not be reduced to writing”
The court clarified that findings of fact required for Habitual Felony Offender sentencing enhancement may be made orally rather than in writing.
Rolando Moreno was convicted of unlawful possession of cocaine and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia and received an enhanced sentence under t…
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 Findings Of Fact Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Rolando Moreno from judgments of conviction and sentences for unlawful possession of cocaine and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. The sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in enhancing the defendant’s sentence under the Habitual Felony Offender Statute [§ 775.-084, Fla.Stat. (1987) ] because the trial court failed to make specific findings of fact which show on their face that an extended prison term is necessary to protect the public from the defendant’s further criminal conduct. We entirely agree; indeed, the state confesses error on this point. Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1980); § 775.084(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1987).
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, however, the trial court upon remand may orally make the requisite findings of fact in open court on the record; such findings need not be reduced to writing. Parker v. State, 546 So. 2d 727 (Fla.1989); contra Rodriguez v. State, 542 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (implicitly overruled by Parker).
The final judgments of conviction under review are affirmed; the sentences under review are reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for resentencing in accord with the views expressed in this opinion. Affirmed, in part; reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hierro v. State, 608 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…en order, although the trial court may enter a written order if it so chooses. See Parker v. State, 546 So. 2d 727, 729 (Fla.1989); Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d at 226; Tibbetts v. State, 603 So. 2d [*916] 43, 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Moreno v. State, 550 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). We find no error in the trial court’s evi-dentiary rulings regarding the restraining order. For the reasons stated, the conviction for possession of burglary tools is reversed and remanded with directions to enter a judgment of…
-
Power v. State, 568 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…y the trial court after its determination that Power is an habitual offender. Because the trial court failed to make the factual findings required by section 775.-084, Florida Statutes, we must vacate the habitual offender sentence. Moreno v. State, 550 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Although the 1989 version of the habitual offender statute no longer requires that the trial court find that a defendant poses a threat to public safety, the other findings necessary to an habitual offender determination survived…
-
Chang v. State, 559 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See and compare Parker v. State, 546 So. 2d 727 (Fla.1989); Moreno v. State, 550 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Bohannon v. State, 546 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1987).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fredford James Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1980)
- Timmie Lewis Parker v. State, 546 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1989)
- Allstate Computer Exch., Inc. v. Dep't OF Legal Affairs, 542 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Viehman v. Gus F. Viehman, 542 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)