CLINTON WHITFIELD, 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 amended habitual offender statute cannot be retroactively applied to offenses committed before its effective date.
Appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine. The trial court erroneously applied an amended habitual offender statute to sentencing for an offens…
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 Sentencing Guidelines Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
We find no merit in appellant’s challenges to his conviction for possession of cocaine. However, the State concedes that the trial court erroneously applied the amended habitual offender statute, chapter 88-131, Laws of Florida, to an offense committed before its effective date.
The State points out that this error was not brought to the attention of the sentencing judge, who apparently considered this to be a case in which the sentencing guidelines did not apply because of the amended statute, and requests that the case be remanded to the trial court for resentencing, citing Roberts v. State, 547 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1989).
Appellant’s conviction is AFFIRMED, but his sentence is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for resentencing. If the court finds it appropriate, it may sentence appellant as an habitual offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1987), and may impose a sentence beyond the sentencing guidelines recommended range if valid contemporaneous written reasons for departure are given.
BOOTH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stewart v. State, 576 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…ourt was under the mistaken belief that the guidelines did not apply, the court may impose a departure sentence on resentenc-ing if valid contemporaneous written reasons are given.1 See Jones v. State, 559 So. 2d 204 (Fla.1990); Whitfield v. State, 561 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Appellant’s conviction is affirmed, but his sentence is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for resentenc-ing. NIMMONS, BARFIELD and MINER, JJ., concur. . The record establishes that the trial court proce…
Authorities Cited
- Doyal Powell Roberts v. State, 547 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1989)