STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CHRISTOPHER CARDALE DAVIS, 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 State of Florida appealed a trial court's sentence of ten years' probation imposed on a habitual felony offender, arguing the sentence improperly departed downward from sentencing guidelines. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the State has no right to appeal a sentence imposed under the habitual offender statute as long as the sentence is legal.
The State has no right to appeal Davis's sentence because neither of the two circumstances permitting state appeals to sentencing decisions apply: the sentence is not illegal, and sentences imposed under the habitual offender statute are not subject to sentencing guidelines review.
[1] The State's right to appeal a sentence is limited to specific circumstances enumerated in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(1).
[2] A sentence imposed under the habitual offender statute is not subject to the sentencing guidelines.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 state's right to appeal is very limited.”
Establishes the narrow scope of appellate jurisdiction for the State in criminal cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChristopher Cardale Davis was found guilty of a third-degree felony and adjudicated a habitual felony offender. The trial court sentenced him to ten y…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.140 cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Acting Chief Judge.
The State of Florida appeals Davis’s sentence of ten years’ probation which the trial court imposed after finding Davis to be a habitual felony offender. The state maintains that the trial court erred in imposing a sentence which is effectively a downward departure from the recommended sentencing guidelines range of three and one-half to four arid one-half years in state prison. The state argues that imposition of the sentence is in derogation of the purpose of the habitual offender statute which is to provide for enhanced penalties for habitual offenders.
We must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The state’s right to appeal is very limited. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140 provides:
(1) Appeals Permitted. The State may appeal an order:
(A)'Dismissing an indictment or information or any count thereof;
(B) Suppressing before trial confessions, admissions or evidence obtained by search and seizure;
(C) Granting a new trial; (D) Arresting judgment;
(E) Discharging a defendant pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191;
(F) Discharging a prisoner on habeas corpus;
(G) Adjudicating a defendant incompetent or insane;
(H) Ruling on a question of law when a convicted defendant appeals his judgment of conviction; and may appeal
(I) An illegal sentence;
(J) A sentence imposed outside the range recommended by the guidelines authorized by Section 921.001, Florida Statutes (1983), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701.
Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(c)(1). Only the last two circumstances pertain to sentencing. The ten years’ probation is not an illegal sentence. The trial judge tried and found Davis guilty of a third-degree felony. The habitual felony offender statute provides that the court shall sentence the defendant guilty of a third-degree felony to a term of years not exceeding ten. § 775.084(4)(a)3, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1988). Also the last circumstance, a sentence imposed outside the recommended sentencing guidelines range, is inapplicable because a sentence imposed under the habitual offender statute is not subject to the sentencing guidelines. See § 775.084(4)(e), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1988). Accordingly, the state has no right to appeal Davis’s sentence.
Although we agree with the state that the legislature never intended for a habitual felony offender to receive a,less severe sentence than if the defendant had been sentenced under the guidelines,* the rules do not permit the state to appeal the sentence of a habitual felony offender as long as the sentence is legal.
Appeal dismissed.
PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur. *
The legislative intent of providing for enhanced penalties for habitual offenders is clear. See Ch. 88-131, §§ 3, 5, Laws of Fla. See also Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219, 223 (Fla.1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
King v. State, 597 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…closely and broadly than we have before been called upon to do and reassess our holdings in previous decisions of this court. Walsingham v. State, 576 So. 2d 365 (Pla. 2d DCA 1991); State v. Allen, 573 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); State v. Davis, 559 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). First, we reject appellant’s argument that a sentence of community control following habitualization of a defendant is illegal. As we have previously observed, even were we able to now reach any procedural errors in the original…1 / 2
-
Bateman v. State, 566 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…section 775.084(4)(e), Florida Statutes, effective October 1988, supersedes Whitehead v. State. This statute removes habitual offender sentences from the sentencing guidelines. See Owens v. State, 560 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); State v. Davis, 559 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); King v. State, 557 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 564 So. 2d 1086 (1990). Therefore, the judgment and sentence are affirmed. ANSTEAD and GARRETT, JJ., concur.…
-
Steiner v. State, 591 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…placement of defendant on community control in the context of a sentence imposed pursuant to section 775.084 is illegal for the reasons explained below. In so finding I would recede from this court’s prior decision to the contrary in State v. Davis, 559 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Nonetheless, as also explained below, I would reverse this particular case only on the basis employed by the majority opinion. I. Defendant was charged by information with burglary of a conveyance (count I) and petit theft (cou…
Authorities Cited
- Fredford James Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1980)