GREG SIMS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that a trial court must make specific findings of fact before sentencing a defendant as an habitual offender.
The defendant was convicted of selling cocaine and sentenced as an habitual offender. The trial court did not make the required findings of fact for t…
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 Habitual Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Sims appeals the enhancement of his sentence as an habitual offender, imposed after he was convicted of selling cocaine. We reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing.
Defendant correctly asserts that the trial court erred in sentencing him as an habitual offender without making the necessary findings of fact required by section 755.-084(l)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988).1 Smith v. State, 573 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Power v. State, 568 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). “These findings need not be reduced to writing as long as they are made in a reported judicial proceeding.” Power, 568 So. 2d at 511-12, citing Parker v. State, 546 So. 2d 727 (Fla.1989). Because the trial court did not make the findings required under the statute, the sentence is reversed and the cause is remanded for resentencing. The trial court may resen-tence defendant as an habitual offender if it makes the necessary findings. Smith; Power. Reversed and remanded.
. The 1988 amendment to section 755.084, Laws 1988, c. 88-131, § 6, effective October 1, 1988, eliminated the additional requirement that “the court determine if it is necessary for the protection of the public to sentence the defendant to an extended term[.]” § 755.084(3), Fla.Stat. (1987). That change did not obviate the need for the trial court to make findings of fact in keeping with subsection (l)(a) of the statute. Power v. State, 568 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Larry Banks v. State, 575 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…conviction an offense which was committed after the primary offense. Thorp v. State, 555 So. 2d 362 (Fla.1990). [*756] On remand, the court may determine that defendant is an habitual offender upon making the necessary findings.2 See Sims v. State, 574 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). However, the trial court must recalculate the scoresheet and impose a guideline sentence. Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990); Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1987). Sentence vacated and remanded. . Defendant committe…
-
Jefferson v. State, 593 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. The record shows the trial court found statutorily sufficient facts to support its ruling that the defendant satisfied the habitual, violent, felony, offender statute and the sentence should be affirmed. See Sims v. State, 574 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Power v. State, 568 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Timmie Lewis Parker v. State, 546 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1989)
- Power v. State, 568 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Smith v. State, 573 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)