TRACEY F. ROLLE, 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.
A trial court must make specific statutory findings of fact before classifying a defendant as a habitual offender.
The state recited the appellant's prior convictions at sentencing, but the trial court failed to make the required statutory findings of fact under se…
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
DELL, Judge.
Tracey F. Rolle appeals from a sentencing order. He contends that the trial court erred when it classified him as a habitual offender without making the required statutory findings of fact. We reverse and remand for resentencing.
The record shows that at the sentencing hearing the state recited appellant’s record of prior convictions. The trial court, however, made no findings as required by section 775.084(l)(a). It stated only the following:
THE COURT: All right. It’s the judgment of the law and the sentence of this Court, you’re adjudicated guilty, sentenced to serve five years and classified as a habitual criminal, credit time served.
A trial court may impose a habitual offender sentence only by first making the statutorily required findings in a reported judicial proceeding. See Parker v. State, 546 So. 2d 727 (Fla.1989). In Walker v. State, 462 So. 2d 452, 454 (Fla.1985), the supreme court noted the fundamental nature of this statutory duty:
We hold that the findings required by section 775.084 are critical to the statutory scheme and enable meaningful appellate review of these types of sentencing decisions. Without these findings, the review process would be difficult, if not impossible. It is clear that the legislature intended the trial court to make specific findings of fact when sentencing a defendant as a habitual offender. Given this mandatory statutory duty, the trial court’s failure to make such findings is appealable regardless of whether such failure is objected to at trial.
Id. at 454.
Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred when it sentenced appellant as a ha bitual offender without the required findings of section 775.084(l)(a). We remand this case to the trial .court for resentencing. On remand, the court may again consider whether the habitual offender statute should be applied. See Meehan v. State, 526 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GARRETT and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Anderson v. State, 592 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…choose which available punishments to apply to convicted offenders.” Barber at 1171. The trial court’s failure to make the findings required by section 775.-084(l)(a) is, however, reversible error, even in the absence of objection. Rolle v. State, 586 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), citing Parker v. State, 546 So. 2d 727 (Fla.1989) and Walker v. State, 462 So. 2d 452 (Fla.1985). Anderson’s sentence must therefore be reversed. We note that, on remand for resentencing, the trial court may resen-tence Anderson…
-
Elliott v. State, 597 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…court sentenced appellant as an habitual offender. However, he did not make all of the necessary findings on the record, and because of this we reverse for a new sentencing proceeding. See Walker v. State, 462 So. 2d 452 (Fla.1985); Rolle v. State, 586 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). On remand the trial court may resentence Appellant as a habitual offender if the required statutory findings are made and supported by the evidence. Meehan v. State, 526 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). AFFIRMED AS TO CONVICTIO…
-
Basilisco v. State, 593 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…d attached a copy of the plea and sentencing transcript. The classification of a defendant as an habitual offender without making the findings required by section 775.084(l)(a) is reversible error, even in the absence of objection. Rolle v. State, 586 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). The transcript attached by the trial court does not reflect that such findings were made herein. However, this court has held that “[a] defendant’s knowing waiver of the procedural rights accorded by section 775.084 [by entering…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bennie Lee Walker v. State, 462 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1985)
- Timmie Lewis Parker v. State, 546 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1989)
- Muntaner v. Miller GAS Co., 526 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Hemmerle v. Sunland Props., Inc., 526 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)