FRED D. PARRISH, 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.
Appellant's enhanced sentence as a habitual felony offender was reversed because the 1988 statute requires at least two Florida felony convictions as a prerequisite, and appellant had only out-of-state Alabama burglary convictions.
To qualify as a habitual felony offender under the 1988 statute, a defendant must first have two or more felony convictions in Florida, and out-of-state convictions alone are insufficient.
[1] Under Florida Statutes section 775.084(1)(a)1 (Supp.1988), a defendant must have at least two prior felony convictions in Florida to qualify as a habitual felony offender…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant pled nolo contendere to a July 12, 1989 robbery and was sentenced as a habitual felony offender based on two Alabama burglary convictions.…
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 Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Fred D. Parrish, pled nolo con-tendere to a July 12, 1989, robbery. He was sentenced as a habitual felony offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), based upon a pair of Alabama burglary convictions. On appeal, he argues that the 1988 version of the habitual offender statute requires at least, two Florida felony convictions, and that his Alabama convictions were insufficient to make him a habitual offender. The state concedes error on this point, and we agree that appellant was improperly classified as a habitual offender. To be deemed a habitual felony offender, the 1988 habitual offender statute necessitates an initial finding that the defendant has “previously been convicted of two or more felonies in this state.” § 775.084(l)(a)l, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1988). Although the statute contains additional requirements which permit the use of out-of-state convictions, the state’s failure to establish the first requirement forecloses the possibility of habitual offender classification. Because appellant only had out-of-state convictions, he was outside the scope of the habitual offender provision.
Accordingly, we must REVERSE appellant’s enhanced sentence and REMAND the case for resentencing.
ERVIN, WIGGINGTON and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thad McGillery Brown v. State, 609 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…nitial finding that the “defendant has previously been convicted of two or more felonies in this state.” See § 775.-084(l)(a)l, Fla.Stat. (1987) (emphasis supplied). See also Flewelling v. State, 576 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Parrish v. State, 571 So. 2d 97, 98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The legislative act which amended the prior habitual felony offender law was found to be constitutionally infirm during the period of time within which appellant committed the offenses for which habitual felony offender sen…
-
Swinson v. State, 588 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…nded term of imprisonment, as provided in this section, if it finds that: 1. The defendant has previously been convicted of any combination of two or more felonies in this state or other qualified offenses. ... (emphasis added) . Parrish v. State, 571 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). . U.S. Const. Art. 1, § 10; Art. 1, § 10, Fla. Const. . Carnegie v. State, 564 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). See also Ghianuly v. State, 516 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). . Carter v. State, 571 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 199…
-
Rankin v. State, 620 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…viction apparently cannot be taken into account, Rankin does not qualify as a habitual offender under this version of the statute if he has but one prior Florida conviction. See Swinson v. State, 588 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Parrish v. State, 571 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Additional revisions were made by the 1989 legislature, effective October 1, 1989. Ch. 89-280, § 1, Laws of Fla. The concept of “qualified offense” was expanded to include convictions from the District of Co [*1030] lumbia, Ame…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence