JESSE FRANKLIN HOLLEY, 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 affirmed the appellant's sentencing as an habitual violent felony offender.
Appellant was convicted of burglary, grand theft, and firearm theft, and probation was revoked for prior offenses. The trial court sentenced him as an…
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 Predicate Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Senior Judge.
Appellant challenges his sentencing as an habitual violent felony offender after his conviction for burglary of a dwelling while armed, grand theft, and two counts of grand theft of a firearm. Sentences were also imposed upon the revocation of probation for aggravated assault, delivery of marijuana, and trespassing. We find no error with regard to the court’s decision to sentence appellant as an habitual violent felony offender. Appellant was previously convicted of aggravated assault, which is an enumerated predicate offense for habitual violent felony offender sentencing. See section 775.084(l)(b)l.f, Florida Statutes. Appellant’s constitutional challenges to the habitual offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes, are without merit. See Pittman v. State, 570 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Barber v. State, 564 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). In sentencing appellant as an habitual offender, the court was not required to utilize a sentencing guidelines scoresheet since habitual offender sentencing is by statute exempted from sentencing guidelines procedures. See Owens v. State, 560 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); section 775.084(4)(e), Florida Statutes.
Although no cross appeal has been filed, the state argues that the court should have imposed certain mandatory minimum sentences in accordance with statutory requirements. We do not address that issue because in these circumstances appellee must file a cross appeal in order to present that issue for review. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.210(c). Nevertheless, the state is free to raise its argument before the trial court by way of a motion under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800.
Affirmed.
BOOTH and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Matthews, 891 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2004)…nes); Daniels v. State, 591 So. 2d 1103, 1104 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (noting that once a defendant is adjudicated a habitual offender with regard to an offense, that offense is removed from sentencing guide [*490] lines consideration); Holley v. State, 577 So. 2d 624, 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (“[H]a-bitual offender sentencing is by statute exempted from sentencing guidelines procedures.”); Bateman v. State, 566 So. 2d 358, 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (“[S]ection 775.084(4)(e), Florida Statutes, effective October 1988…
-
White v. State, 618 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…that under the applicable version of the habitual violent offender statute, Appellant’s sentence is expressly exempted from the sentencing guidelines provisions of section 921.001, Florida Statutes (1989). See Section 775.084(4)(e); Holley v. State, 577 So. 2d 624, 625 (Fla. 1st DCA1991); Owens v. State, 560 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA1990). We find the following language in Thompson v. State, 558 So. 2d 111, 112 (Fla. 3d DCA1990), instructive as to those instances, like Appellant’s sentencing hearing, where th…
-
Ross v. State, 579 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…iously been rejected by this court in numerous cases, including Pittman v. State, 570 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Henderson v. State, 569 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Barber v. State, 564 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); and Holley v. State, 577 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). See also King v. State, 557 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). However, one of his constitutional challenges to that statute has not previously been resolved and therefore merits discussion. Appellant contends that substantive due…
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
- Barber v. State, 564 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Pittman v. State, 570 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Owens v. State, 560 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)