CURTIS WILLIAMS, 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.
Curtis Williams appeals sentences imposed after conviction for two counts of sale of a false controlled substance. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing, finding the trial court erred in applying the habitual offender statute without making required findings of fact and in using an incorrect sentencing scoresheet category.
The trial court erred in finding Williams was a habitual felony offender without making the specific findings of fact required by section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1987). Additionally, the trial court erred by using a category VII scoresheet when a category VI scoresheet was applicable because the conviction was under a fraud statute, not a drug statute.
[1] A trial court must make specific findings of fact to support a determination that a defendant is an habitual felony offender and that an extended term is necessary to pro…
[2] A conclusory statement is insufficient to establish a defendant as an habitual felony offender.
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“In order to impose an enhanced sentence under the 1987 version of the habitual offender statute, the court must make specific findings of fact which establish that an extended term is necessary in order to protect the public from the defendant's further criminal conduct.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for habitual offender sentencing and the type of findings the trial court must make
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was found guilty by jury of two counts of sale of a false controlled substance under section 817.563(1), Florida Statutes (1987). The state r…
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 Corroboration Of Prior Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Acting Chief Judge.
The appellant, Curtis Williams, challenges the sentences imposed upon him after he was found guilty of two counts of sale of a false controlled substance in violation of section 817.563(1), Florida Statutes (1987). We find that the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant and, accordingly, reverse and remand for resentencing.
After the appellant was found guilty by a jury of two counts of sale of a false controlled substance, the state, pursuant to a prior notice, requested the court to find that the appellant was an habitual felony offender. The court stated that the PSI, the scoresheet, and the evidence were sufficient to support a finding that the appellant was an habitual offender and granted the state’s request. After making this finding, the court, using a category VII scoresheet, sentenced the appellant to serve two concurrent seven year prison sentences. This timely appeal followed.
We agree with the appellant’s contention that the trial court erred by finding that he was an habitual felony offender without complying with the requirements of section 775.084, Florida .Statutes (1987). In order to impose an enhanced sentence under the 1987 version of the habitual offender statute, the court must make specific findings of fact which establish that an extended term is necessary in order to protect the public from the defendant’s further criminal conduct. A mere conclusory statement such as given by the trial court in this case is not sufficient. Pugh v. State, 547 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). See also Hugger v. State, 496 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). We, accordingly, vacate the appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing.
The trial court may reconsider application of the habitual offender statute upon resentencing, but in the event he applies the statute, he must make the findings required by the statute.
The court also erred by using a category VII scoresheet in determining the appellant’s guidelines sentence. A category VII scoresheet is applicable in determining a sentence for convictions dealing with drugs under chapter 893, Florida Statutes (1987). Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.988(g). The appellant was convicted of sale of a false controlled substance in violation of section 817.563. Since the appellant was convicted under a fraud statute, he should have been sentenced under a category VI scoresheet. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.988(f); Lindsey v. State, 453 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Therefore, upon remand for resentencing, the judge should use the category VI score-sheet. At the appellant’s original sentencing hearing, the appellant challenged several of the convictions attributed to him on the scoresheet. We cannot ascertain from the record furnished to us if the state carried its burden of corroborating the accuracy of the challenged convictions. We remind the court, however, that upon remand, if the appellant challenges any prior convictions listed on the new scoresheet, the state must corroborate them. Smith v. State, 528 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
Reversed and remanded for resentencing.
LEHAN and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lindsey v. State, 453 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Robby Douglas Pugh v. State, 547 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Smith v. State, 528 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Hugger v. State, 496 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)