KENNETH EARL WEBB, 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 court held that the trial court erred in failing to corroborate the accuracy of the prior record portion of the guidelines scoresheet and in sentencing the appellant as a habitual offender without making the required specific findings of fact.
Appellant was convicted of uttering a forged document. At sentencing, he contested the accuracy of his prior record on the guidelines scoresheet and a…
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
CAMPBELL, Chief Judge.
Appellant, Kenneth Webb, appeals his conviction and sentence for uttering a forged document. We find no merit in appellant’s first point and affirm appel lant’s conviction. We do, however, find merit in his other two contentions.
At sentencing, appellant contested some of the convictions contained in the. prior record portion of the guidelines score-sheet. We agree with appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in failing to require the state to corroborate the accuracy of the scoresheet. See Smith v. State, 528 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Delaine v. State, 486 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
We also find merit in appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a habitual offender without the specific findings of fact that an extended term of imprisonment is necessary to protect the public from further criminal conduct. Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1980); Scott v. State, 446 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Accordingly, we affirm appellants conviction but vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing with directions that the trial court may again sentence appellant as a habitual offender provided the required findings of fact are made pursuant to section 775.084(3), Florida Statutes (1987).
SCHOONOVER and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hlad v. State, 565 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…t or penalty phase of a subsequent criminal case. See e.g., Blanton v. State, 546 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), cause dismissed, 551 So. 2d 460 (Fla.1989); Vandeneynden v. State, 478 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Ousley v. State; Webb v. State, 560 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); State v. Troehler; and Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. . This may be the pretrial and post-trial procedural burden but when the fact in issue is an element of the crime charged the State must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, see In re W…
-
West v. State, 571 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…i.e. October 1, 1988, the trial court erred by not making specific findings of fact establishing that an extended term of imprisonment was necessary to protect the public from further criminal conduct. § 775.084(3), Fla.Stat. (1987); Webb v. State, 560 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Scott v. State, 446 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). We, accordingly, affirm the appellant’s convictions but vacate the sentences imposed upon him and remand for resentenc-ing. At resentencing, the trial court may again sentence t…
Authorities Cited
- Fredford James Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1980)
- Scott v. State, 446 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Delaine v. State, 486 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Smith v. State, 528 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)