FRED JAMES, 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.
Fred James appeals his ten-year sentence as a habitual offender for drug delivery. The court reversed and remanded because the state failed to prove two qualifying predicate felonies under Florida's habitual offender statute, as an out-of-state conviction was temporally ineligible and the timing of a Florida conviction was unclear.
The state failed to prove two qualifying prior felonies. The Kansas conviction could not be considered because the amendment allowing out-of-state felonies did not become effective until October 1, 1989, after James committed the present felony on March 9, 1989. The timing of the Florida conviction was too ambiguous to determine if it fell within five years of the present offense.
[1] A defendant's failure to object to the trial court's findings of habitual offender status at the sentencing hearing does not preclude the defendant from raising the issue…
[2] To qualify for habitual offender status, a defendant must have been previously convicted of at least two felonies, and the current felony must have been committed within…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The habitual felony offender designation in sections 775.084(1)(a)(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (1989), requires that the defendant has previously been convicted of any combination of two or more felonies in this state or other qualified offenses and that the felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced was committed within five years of the conviction date of the last prior felony.”
Establishes the legal standard for habitual offender designation that the state must satisfy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames entered a nolo contendere plea on June 12, 1990, with the understanding the state would seek habitual offender classification. At sentencing, th…
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 Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
Fred James appeals from the ten-year sentence he received as a habitual offender for delivery of a controlled substance. On June 12, 1990, the appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere with the understanding the state was seeking to have him classified as a habitual offender. The appellant failed to object to the trial court’s findings that the state had proven his habitual offender status. However, this failure does not preclude him from raising this issue on appeal. Walker v. State, 567 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
The habitual felony offender designation in sections 775.084(1)(a)(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (1989), requires that the defendant has previously been convicted of any combination of two or more felonies in this state or other qualified offenses and that the felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced was committed within five years of the conviction date of the last prior felony.
We conclude the record does not contain evidence of the two predicate felonies necessary to declare the appellant a habitual offender. At the sentencing hearing, the state placed into evidence a certified copy of a prior Kansas conviction dated June 30, 1982, and another Kansas case which had been dismissed. At the hearing, the appellant mentioned a 1988 Florida felony conviction, which he had earlier indicated as occurring in 1982. Other than the contradictory reference to the Florida felony conviction, the record does not reflect evidence specific enough to determine if the Florida conviction was within five years of the date of the commission of the present felony. Johnson v. State, 576 So. 2d 916, 917 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
In addition, the trial court could not consider the Kansas conviction in its habit ual offender finding. The amendment to section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1987), allowing consideration of out-of-state felonies for the necessary prior convictions did not become effective until October 1, 1989. The appellant committed the present felony on March 9, 1989, before the effective date of the amendment. Therefore, we find the state has not demonstrated two prior felonies under section 775.084 and the sentence must be vacated.
However, because the appellant failed to object at the sentencing hearing, the state will have the opportunity to prove the appellant meets the requirements of section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989). See Johnson v. State, 576 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). We therefore reverse and remand for resentencing in keeping with this court’s findings.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Romerio Latee Walker v. State, 567 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Orrin Johnson v. State, 576 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)