NELSON LEE DAVIS, 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.
Court remands for clarification whether defendant's ten-year sentence for grand theft was imposed under the habitual offender statute, as the judgment fails to reflect the required statutory designation.
A trial court must clearly indicate in the judgment and sentence whether a sentence is imposed pursuant to the habitual offender statute, and if not properly designated, the defendant is entitled to resentencing within appropriate guidelines.
[1] A trial court must clearly designate in the judgment and sentence whether a sentence is imposed under the habitual offender statute, and failure to do so requires remand…
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 intelligenceDavis was convicted of grand theft of an automobile following a jury trial and sentenced to ten years in prison consecutive to two other felony charge…
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 Grand Theft Of An Automobile cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
An Anders1 brief was filed in Nelson Lee Davis’s behalf following his conviction and sentence for grand theft of an automobile.2 We remand for clarification on one point concerning the sentence.
Following the state charging Davis with grand theft, the state served Davis personally with a written notice of enhanced penalty pursuant to the habitual offender statute. Following a jury trial, the trial court sentenced Davis to ten years in prison consecutive to two other felony charges. However, the judgment and sentence do not reflect any writing, markings, or initials to indicate that the sentence was imposed pursuant to section 775.084(4)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), the habitual offender statute. If this is not a habitual offender sentence, the maximum prior sentence for grand theft of an automobile is five years. See § 775.082, Fla.Stat. (1987) and § 812.014(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1988).
We remand this case to the trial court to amend the judgment and sentence to clarify whether Davis was sentenced pursuant to the habitual offender statute. If the trial judge did not intend to classify Davis as a habitual offender, then Davis is entitled to resentencing within the appropriate sentencing guidelines. See Arnold v. State, 566 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In either case, Davis need not be present.
Remanded with instructions.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur. . Anders v. Calif., 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
. The crime occurred on July 8, 1989.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Arnold v. State, 566 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)