MARVIN ROWLAND, 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 trial court erred by failing to make the required findings under section 775.084(3)(d), Florida Statutes, before imposing a habitual offender sentence.
Marvin Rowland pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance and resisting an officer. The trial court imposed a habitual offender sentence w…
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
FRANK, Judge.
Marvin Rowland appeals from the trial court’s imposition of a habitual offender sentence. On May 29, 1990, Rowland entered pleas of guilty to charges of possession of a controlled substance and resisting an officer without violence. The offenses occurred on January 29, 1990. Rowland received notice of the state’s intention to seek a habitual offender sentence.
At the sentencing hearing the trial court adopted an agreed upon three and one-half year sentence, but without enhancing the term, he sentenced Rowland as a habitual offender. Rowland contends that it was error for the trial court not to make the findings required by section 775.084(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1989). We agree.
Section 775.084(3)(d) provides that the trial court “shall [find] by a preponderance of the evidence” the existence of the criteria set forth in section 775.084(1)(a). These findings may be expressed on the record in a reported judicial proceeding or acknowledged in a written order. Parker v. State, 546 So. 2d 727 (Fla.1989). The instant record, however, discloses no findings. Moreover, there is an absence from the record of a presentence investigation report. It is impossible to detect whether the conditions supporting habitualization existed at the time of sentencing. Because the imposition of a habitual offender sentence affects eligibility for certain gain-time, see § 775.084(4)(e), Fla.Stat. (1989), compliance with section 775.084(3)(d) is essential.
Accordingly, we remand for the findings required by section 775.084. If such findings cannot be made, Rowland is to be sentenced pursuant to the agreement.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Ransom Louis Collins, 985 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 2008)…ntered on the same day); Flewelling v. State, 576 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (resentencing ordered where trial court erred in sentencing defendant as an HFO without [*1001] explicit proof of two or more felonies in this state); Rowland v. State, 583 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (resentencing ordered where trial court failed to make specific findings of prior convictions on the record pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes); Cuthbert v. State, 459 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (resentencing order…
-
Baxter v. State, 599 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…us offense or that it has not been set aside in a post-conviction proceeding since these are affirmative defenses ... rather than matters required to be proved by the State.1 Frazier v. State, 595 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) and Rowland v. State, 583 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) do not require a different result, since those cases did not specifically address the criteria under section 775.084(l)(a)3-4. We certify conflict with Hodges v. State, 596 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) and Anderson v. State, 592…
-
Frazier v. State, 595 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…rial exhibits. Moreover, the record does not contain a presentence investigation report. It, therefore, is impossible to ascertain from this record whether the requirements for habitualization existed at the time of sentencing. See Rowland v. State, 583 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Thus the sentence must be vacated. Because Frazier failed to object at trial, the state will have the opportunity to prove that Frazier meets the requirements of the statute. See Johnson v. State, 576 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Timmie Lewis Parker v. State, 546 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1989)