STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES HANNEY, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's order that treated a DUI charge as a misdemeanor. The appellate court held that uncounseled prior DUI convictions, for which the defendant was not subject to more than six months imprisonment, could be used to enhance a subsequent DUI charge to a felony.
Yes, uncounseled prior DUI convictions, where the defendant was not subject to more than six months imprisonment, can be used to enhance a subsequent DUI charge to a felony.
[1] A prior conviction for driving under the influence cannot be used to enhance a subsequent charge to a felony if the prior conviction was uncounseled and the defendant was…
[2] A defendant is not entitled to counsel for a misdemeanor offense if the maximum possible sentence is six months or less.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 be entitled to counsel, the appellee must have been subject to more than six months in prison upon conviction or actually have been imprisoned upon conviction.”
establishes the legal standard for entitlement to counsel in prior convictions.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee was charged with felony DUI based on three prior convictions, including two from 1982 and one from 1986. The appellee argued that the two…
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 Felony Dui Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
The state challenges the order granting the appellee’s motion to prohibit enhancement or motion to dismiss and certifying that the charge against the appellee for driving under the influence be treated as a misdemeanor. We reverse.
The appellee filed the motion to prohibit enhancement after he was charged by information with felony DUI under section 316.193(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1987), which provides that a defendant shall be charged with felony DUI if he has three prior DUI convictions. In the motion the appellee asserted that his two 1982 DUI convictions were uncounseled and could not be used in conjunction with his 1986 DUI conviction to enhance the pending charge to a felony.
The trial court concurred with that assertion with regard to the 1982 conviction in case no. 82-129-066-0 and certified the pending charge as a misdemeanor.
The state contends that the trial court erred in granting the appellee’s motion because the appellee did not have a right to counsel under the law as it existed in 1982. When the appellee was convicted of the two DUI’s in 1982, he was not subject to more than six months’ imprisonment for either conviction. § 316.193(2), Fla.Stat. (1981). In order to be entitled to counsel, the appellee must have been subject to more than six months in prison upon conviction or actually have been imprisoned upon conviction.1 Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U.S. 222, 100 S.Ct. 1585, 64 L.Ed.2d 169, reh. denied, 447 U.S. 930, 100 S.Ct. 3030, 65 L.Ed.2d 1125 (1980); Leffew v. State, 518 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
We agree with the state’s contention and set aside the trial court’s order certifying the felony as a misdemeanor and remand for further proceedings upon the felony charge.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur. . In deference to the trial judge, at the hearing on the appellee’s motion, pages 116-117 of the record, the state attorney indicated that a sentence of less than six months’ imprisonment would have entitled the appellee to counsel for his 1982 charges.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hlad v. State, 585 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 1991)…d he was not actually subjected to a term of imprisonment.” Hlad, 565 So. 2d at 764. In support of its decision, the court referred to Judge Zehmer’s analysis of Baldosar in Allen v. State, 463 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Accord State v. Hanney, 571 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Without reference to Baldosar, the court in State v. Troehler reached the opposite result. Accord Pilla v. State. We agree with the reasoning of the court below. Under Justice Blackmun’s bright line rule, Hlad’s prior DUI convic…
Authorities Cited
- Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U.S. 222 (U.S. 1980)
- Jennings Harold Leffew v. State, 518 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Sutker v. Ill. State Dental Soc'y, 447 U.S. 930 (U.S. 1980)
- Fisher v. Reiser, 447 U.S. 930 (U.S. 1980)