DAVID LEE SHOWERS, 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.
David Lee Showers appealed his conviction and sentence, raising five issues. The appellate court affirmed most of the conviction and sentence, but reversed and remanded the restitution determination because the trial court improperly delegated that task to probation and parole officers.
The court affirmed on all issues except the restitution determination. Issue one was not preserved for appeal and affirmed. Issue two: the habitual offender statute is constitutional. Issue three: the trial court properly sentenced Showers as a habitual felony offender without finding necessity to protect public and proper notice was given. Issue four: written reasons are not required for guideline departure once habitual offender status is determined. Issue five: statutory costs were properly imposed, but the restitution determination must be reversed and remanded.
[1] A motion for judgment of acquittal is insufficient to preserve an appellate argument if it fails to set out the specific grounds or supporting argument made on appeal.
[2] The constitutionality of the habitual offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes, has been upheld against challenges based on the same arguments raised on appeal…
Previewing 2 of 6 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 argument raised in the first issue has not been preserved for appeal and must be affirmed.”
Establishes that motions for judgment of acquittal must contain specific arguments and grounds to preserve issues for appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShowers was convicted and sentenced as a habitual felony offender for crimes committed on October 12, 1988. The State filed notice of intention to see…
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 Preservation Of Error For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Chief Judge.
David Lee Showers appeals his conviction and sentence and raises five issues.
The first issue, whether the evidence was sufficient to support appellant’s conviction, was not brought to the attention of the trial court. The motion for judgment of acquittal made by the defendant at the close of the State’s case and at the close of all the evidence was deficient. They not only failed to set out the argument made on appeal, but failed to set out any grounds whatsoever or to make any supporting argument. The argument raised in the first issue has not been preserved for appeal and must be affirmed. G.W.B. v. State, 340 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
The second issue raises the constitutionality of section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1988), the habitual offender statute. We recently upheld the constitutionality of this statute against the same arguments raised in appellant’s brief. See Barber v. State, 564 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). We affirm the second issue.
The third issue is whether the trial court erred in sentencing appellant as a habitual felony offender without making the requisite findings or providing notice to the defendant. This court held in Robinson v. State, 551 So. 2d 1240, 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989):
Chapter 88-131, section 6, Laws of Florida, which became effective October 1, 1988, amended section 775.084(3), Florida Statutes, to delete the requirement that the trial court determine ‘if it is necessary for the protection of the public to sentence the defendant to an extended term as provided in subsection (4).’ The statute now requires only that the court determine ‘if the defendant is an habitual felony offender or an habitual violent felony offender.’ Appellant’s crimes were committed on October 12, 1988. Since he met the applicable statutory criteria for an habitual felony offender, the trial court did not need to find that an extended term was necessary to protect the public, and did not err in imposing an enhanced sentence under section 775.-084(4), Florida Statutes (1988).
Appellant’s second point on this issue is without merit. The record shows that the State’s “Notice of Intention to Seek Habitual Felony Offender Sentencing” was filed in the trial court and served on defendant’s attorney on January 5, 1989.
On the fourth issue, appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing a guideline departure sentence without providing written reasons. A trial court is not required to provide written reasons for imposing a guideline departure sentence once it has determined that the defendant fits the definition of an habitual felony offender. See Owens v. State, 560 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
On the fifth issue, we affirm in part and reverse in part. Appellant first claims that the trial court erred in imposing statutory costs without providing the procedural safeguards previously mandated in Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984). This court has recently interpreted state and federal decisions as holding that an indigent defendant need not be provided notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the imposition of statutorily-mandated, fixed costs. See Rhodes v. State, 566 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s imposition of costs. As in Rhodes, however, we recognize that the Florida Supreme Court has not expressly receded from its holding in Jenkins, supra. For that reason, we again certify the following question to the Supreme Court:
WHETHER BULL v. STATE, 548 So. 2d 1103 (FLA.1989), STANDS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT STATUTORILY-MANDATED AND FIXED COSTS MAY BE IMPOSED ON CONVICTED INDIGENT CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS WITHOUT AFFORDING THEM SPECIAL NOTICE OR A HEARING SEPARATE FROM THE SENTENCING HEARING.
As to appellant’s second point on this issue, the law is clear, and appellee concedes, that the amount of restitution to be paid by defendant must be determined by the court, and that the task may not be delegated to a probation or parole officer. Section 948.03(l)(e), F.S. (1989); Doner v. State, 515 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The trial court’s order that the defendant “make restitution as determined by probation and parole” must therefore be reversed, and the matter remanded with directions that the amount of restitution, if any, be determined by the trial court.
AFFIRMED in part, and REVERSED and REMANDED in part.
MINER and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morales v. State, 170 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…pering with evidence); Vathis v. State, 729 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding a motion for judgment of acquittal based on lack of identity insufficient to preserve issue of lack' of proof of other elements of sexual battery); Showers v. State, 570 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (holding a motion for judgment of acquittal without any specific argument insufficient to preserve claim of lack of evidence to support crime); Campbell v. State, 553 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (explaining defendant not permi…
-
Costa T. Vathis v. State, 729 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…close of the state’s evidence. See Morris v. State, 721 So. 2d 725, 726 (Fla.1998). But that motion did not preserve the sufficiency points now argued on appeal. See, e.g., Clark v. State, 635 So. 2d 68, 68-69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Showers v. State, 570 So. 2d 377, 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Cornwell v. State, 425 So. 2d 1189, 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the state’s case raised only the issue of the perpetrator’s identity. See G.W.B. v. State, 340 So. 2d 9…
-
Johnson v. State, 597 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…tence is illegal because, while the notice of intent was served on defense counsel, it was not served on appellant himself. This court expressly rejected the same argument in Meehan v. State, 590 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and Showers v. State, 570 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Appellant’s third argument is that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to make the findings required by the habitual offender statute. Section 775.-084(l)(a) has been interpreted to mean that: A trial court m…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Barber v. State, 564 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Bull v. State, 548 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1989)
- G. W. B. v. State, 340 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Robinson v. State, 551 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Owens v. State, 560 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Verne Albert Doner v. State, 515 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Smith v. State, 566 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)