JEROME 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.
Jerome Whitfield appealed his convictions for battery on a law enforcement officer, resisting an officer with violence, and criminal mischief, challenging the constitutionality of Florida's Habitual Felony Offender Act and the trial court's sentencing. The appellate court rejected his constitutional challenge but found a material discrepancy between the trial court's oral pronouncements and written findings regarding his habitual offender classification and sentence length, requiring remand for clarification and resentencing.
The court rejected Whitfield's constitutional challenge to the Habitual Felony Offender Act as previously upheld precedent. The court found the record insufficiently clear to determine the trial court's actual intent regarding habitual offender classification and sentence length, requiring remand for the trial court to clarify its classification and impose the corresponding sentence.
[1] The constitutionality of Florida's Habitual Felony Offender Act, as amended in 1988, has been previously upheld against equal protection and due process challenges.
[2] A discrepancy between a trial court's oral sentencing pronouncements and its written findings requires remand for clarification.
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 record is simply not clear enough for us to conclude which sentence was intended. In this situation, the case should be remanded.”
Establishes the standard that when sentencing discrepancies exist between oral pronouncements and written findings and the record is unclear, remand is appropriate for clarification.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhitfield was convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer, resisting an officer with violence, and misdemeanor criminal mischief. At sentencing,…
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 Minimum Mandatory Term cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Whitfield appeals his judgment and sentences imposed after being convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer, resisting an officer with violence, and misdemeanor criminal mischief. He was sentenced for the felonies under Florida’s Habitual Felony Offender Act,1 and he raises two sentencing issues.
Whitfield first claims that the Habitual Felony Offender Act as amended in 19882 unconstitutionally denies equal protection and due process to those sentenced under its provisions. This court previously upheld the constitutionality of the revised statute. See King v. State, 557 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 564 So. 2d 1086 (Fla.1990).
Second, Whitfield points out a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncements and the written habitual offender findings. The trial court orally found Whitfield to be an habitual offender and imposed consecutive five year sentences for the two felonies. But, the written findings indicate that defendant was classified as an habitual violent felony offender and received consecutive ten year sentences, each with a five year minimum mandatory term.
The state argues that the written habitual offender findings were correct. Appel-lee notes a lot of confusion ensued at the sentencing hearing due to Whitfield’s unruliness, and counsel suggests that the written findings may reflect the court’s actual intent.
The record is simply not clear enough for us to conclude which sentence was intended. In this situation, the case should be remanded. See Lester v. State, 563 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Upon remand, the trial court shall clarify whether it intended to classify Whitfield as an habitual offender or an habitual violent offender, and shall thereupon impose the corresponding sentence. There is also some confusion in the record concerning the length of incarceration. Accordingly, we quash the felony sentences and remand for resentencing. The convictions and misdemeanor sentence are affirmed. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; FELONY SENTENCES VACATED; REMANDED for RESENTENCING.
GOSHORN and GRIFFIN, JJ„ concur. . See § 775.084, Fla.Stat. (1989).
. See Ch. 88-131, § 6, Laws of Florida.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Justice v. State, 658 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…xisted some unexplained conflict between the written sentence and the oral pronouncement, the lower court would be permitted to impose what it “intended” to pronounce even if it were not what was, in fact, pronounced.2 See, e.g., Whitfield v. State, 569 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Even at its most expansive, however, the underlying rationale of this prior case law has no application to the situation presented here. Here, there is no reasonable possibility either that the sentencing proceeding record erro…
-
Harrison Hampton, Jr. v. State, 711 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…n this case does not clearly indicate what the trial court intended, [*202] this ease must be remanded so that the trial court can clarify whether the defendant was sentenced as an habitual felony offender on counts II and V. See Whitfield v. State, 569 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the defendant’s motion for postconviction relief and remand this matter to the trial court with directions to strike the habitual felony offender status imposed on count III and to rese…
Authorities Cited
- Caracciolo v. State, 557 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Lester v. State, 563 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)