FREDERICK LORENZO LONG, 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.
Frederick Long appeals his sentence under Florida's Habitual Felony Offender Act, challenging its constitutionality on due process, equal protection, and cruel and unusual punishment grounds. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirms the sentence, rejecting Long's arguments that the eight-year sentence was disproportionate and that procedural defects in the sentencing process rendered it invalid.
The court affirmed Long's sentence, holding that the Eighth Amendment disproportionality test from Solem v. Helm applies only to non-violent felonies and even if applicable here, Long failed to meet the proportionality criteria. The court further held that failure to file a notice in the court file does not invalidate habitual offender sentencing when statutory notice requirements are met, and that written reasons for habitual offender determination are not statutorily required when findings are made in a reported judicial proceeding.
[1] A sentence is not cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment solely because it is disproportionate to the crime committed, absent a showing that other jurisd…
[2] The Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment does not apply to legislative policy decisions regarding the severity of punishment.
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 Solem, the court held that a life sentence without parole for uttering a $100.00 bad check under a South Dakota recidivism statute based on six prior non-violent convictions violated the eighth amendment.”
Distinguishes the Supreme Court's Solem precedent as potentially applicable only to non-violent felonies, limiting its scope in habitual offender cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLong was sentenced to eight years under Florida's Habitual Felony Offender Act for his fourth felony conviction, which involved burglary. The trial co…
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 Proportionality cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The appellant, who was sentenced pursuant to Florida’s new Habitual Felony Offender Act,1 challenges the constitutionality of that act on multiple grounds. The first two grounds — due process and equal protection — were dealt with in our recent opinion in King v. State, 557 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
Long also contends that section 775.084 of the Habitual Felony Offender Act violates the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution, which proscribes cruel and unusual punishment. He complains that the sentence of eight years was disproportionate to the crime committed, even though this was his fourth felony. Long cites Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983), for support. In Solem, the court held that a life sentence without parole for uttering a $100.00 bad check under a South Dakota recidivism statute based on six prior non-violent convictions violated the eighth amend ment. In Bloodworth v. State, 504 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), and Mick v. State, 506 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), the First DCA found that Solem applied only to non-violent felonies. In State v. Burch, 545 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), approved, 558 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1990), the court stated:
The state also finds Solem an anomalous departure from the axiom that whatever views the courts may entertain regarding severity of punishment, punishment is peculiarly a question of legislative policy. Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 78 S.Ct. 1280, 2 L.Ed.2d 1405 (1958).
In any event, even if Solem does apply to the instant facts because “burglary” is found to be “non-violent,” the criteria for proportionality analysis outlined in Solem have not been met by Long. There has been no showing that other jurisdictions impose less severe sentences for habitual offenders who are similarly situated, nor has there been a showing that the sentence is particularly harsh (unlike the life sentence in Solem). See also 14 Fla.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, § 336 (1979).
Additionally, the defendant complains that he was sentenced illegally because the court file did not contain a copy of the notice of the state’s intent to seek to have the defendant sentenced as a habitual offender. No contention was raised below or here that notice was not sent and received. Section 775.084(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1987) only requires notice be served on defendant and his counsel. However, filing of this notice is required by Rule 3.030(c), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Where the statutory requirements are met, the failure to file a copy is not fatal to habitual offender enhancement sentencing. On the other hand, in a proper case, where service is an issue, the lack of proof of notice in the court file may be relevant. If the state is not filing these notices because of the absence of an express requirement in the statute, their attention is drawn to the rule.
Finally, Long argues that there were no written reasons for the habitual offender determination. To the contrary, section 775.084 contains no such requirement. A trial judge may properly impose a habitual offender sentence by making the statutorily required findings in a reported judicial proceeding. Parker v. State, 546 So. 2d 727, 729 (Fla.1989). At the sentencing hearing on March 1, 1989, the trial judge received evidence of Long’s prior convictions and made a finding that Long was a habitual felony offender (in open court).
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . See Ch. 88-131, § 6, Laws of Fla. eff. Oct. 1, 1988, now codified as § 775.084.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Henderson v. State, 569 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…State, 569 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Arnold v. State, 566 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Johnson v. State, 564 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Roberts v. State, 559 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA), dismissed, 564 So. 2d 488 (Fla.1990); Long v. State, 558 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); King v. State, 557 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 564 So. 2d 1086 (Fla.1990). See also Barber v. State, 564 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (upholding constitutionality of the 1987 version of this statute against [*927]…
-
Megaleto Andrews v. State, 82 So. 3d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…crimes, including two counts of sexual battery, armed kidnapping, armed robbery, and armed burglary. In Long v. State, the Fifth District reiterated this distinction mentioned in Blood-worth, stating, “Solem applie[s] only to non-violent felonies.” 558 So. 2d 1091, 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Although the triggering crime in the instant case was nonviolent and did not involve harm to any particular individual, appellant does not point to any authority suggesting the particular facts of his case mandate a findin…
-
Desmond Broderick v. State, 564 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…he habitual offender statute on several grounds. The second and fifth districts recently reviewed the constitutionality of this statute and concluded that it is constitutional. See Roberts v. State, 559 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Long v. State, 558 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); King v. State, 557 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). We agree; however, this case raises an additional issue. Appellant argues that, in determining whether he had prior convictions for the purpose of the habitual offender statute…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1983)
- Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1958)
- Caracciolo v. State, 557 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Burch v. State, 558 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1990)
- State v. Burch, 545 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Timmie Lewis Parker v. State, 546 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1989)
- Bloodworth v. State, 504 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Mick v. State, 506 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)