SCOTT G. NEWMAN, 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.
The court held that the habitual felony offender statute as amended no longer requires specific findings for enhanced sentences, but a new sentencing hearing is required for restitution and jail time credit.
Appellant pled guilty to burglary, grand theft, and giving false verification of ownership. He challenged his sentencing as a habitual felony offender…
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.
The appellant, Scott G. Newman, challenges the sentences imposed upon him after he pled guilty to burglary of a dwelling, grand theft, and giving false verification of ownership to a pawnbroker. We find no merit in appellant’s contention that the court erred by sentencing him as an habitual felony offender pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989), without making specific findings of fact that show the necessity for an enhanced sentence for the protection of the public from further criminal activity. The appellant pled guilty to offenses committed in 1989 and the statute as amended in 1988 no longer requires the court to make such findings. See Ch. 88-131, § 6, Laws of Fla.; Arnold v. State, 566 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
We agree, however, with the appellant’s contention that a new sentencing hearing is necessary in regard to restitution and the proper amount of credit for jail time. The court, without affording the appellant a restitution hearing, entered an order requiring the appellant to make restitution in the amount of $1650. Also, although the trial court ordered that the appellant was to be given credit for all time served, and the appellant established that he had been in jail for over a year, the appellant’s sentence only gave him credit for thirty-five days. Since the record does not establish the proper amount of credit the appellant should receive, we must remand for a proper determination. Upon remand, the trial court should afford the appellant a hearing before determining the amount of restitution and the amount of credit for time served.
We also strike the imposition of court costs and attorney’s fees without prejudice to the state to seek reimposition after proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
We affirm the judgments and sentences in all other respects.
Remanded with instructions.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McKINNEY v. State, 585 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…l violent felony offender pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989). Walker v. State, 580 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Johnson v. State, 568 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Appellant’s remaining point is without merit. Newman v. State, 575 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing. SCHEB, A.C.J., and RYDER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.…
-
King v. State, 648 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…(1987). As to offenses committed after that date, however, there is no requirement to make "specific findings of fact that show the necessity for an enhanced sentence for the protection of the public from further criminal activity.” Newman v. State, 575 So. 2d 724, 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); see Arnold, v. State, 566 So. 2d 37, 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), review denied, 576 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 1991). . See Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203, 104 S.Ct. 2305, 81 L.Ed.2d 164 (1984). Compare Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 4…
-
Williams v. State, 674 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…A 1994). We affirm the remaining conditions of probation. See State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla.1996). Williams also argues, and the State concedes, that the trial court erred by imposing restitution without holding a hearing. See Newman v. State, 575 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). We strike the award of restitution for this reason. We also strike the $2 discretionary cost imposed pursuant to section 943.25(13) because it was not announced at sentencing. We strike the $1245 fine because it was imposed witho…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Arnold v. State, 566 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)