MICHAEL EDWARD HALE, 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.
Michael Hale appealed his sentences for burglary and petit theft, challenging the constitutionality of Florida's habitual offender statute and objecting to sentencing discrepancies and court costs. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences but remanded to correct the written petit theft sentence to match the oral pronouncement of sixty days.
The court rejected Hale's constitutional challenges to section 775.084 as having been repeatedly rejected by prior courts; corrected the written petit theft sentence to sixty days to conform to the oral pronouncement; and upheld the imposition of court costs, finding that statutory publication provides constructive notice.
[1] A statute is not unconstitutionally vague if its provisions have been analyzed and rejected numerous times by appellate courts.
[2] A defendant may not challenge a statute on the grounds that it violates the one-subject rule if they could have been sentenced under a prior version of the statute.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 written sentencing order musí; conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement”
Establishes the rule that written sentences must match oral pronouncements at sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHale was convicted of burglary of a structure and petit theft. At sentencing, the trial court orally pronounced a sixty-day sentence for petit theft, …
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 Vagueness Challenge cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Chief Judge.
Appellant appeals the sentences imposed pursuant to his conviction for burglary of a structure and petit theft. Specifically, appellant contends that (1) section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989), is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions, is unconstitutionally vague, and violates the one subject rule of the Florida Constitution; (2) the written judgment reflecting a one year sentence for petit theft should be corrected to conform to the sixty-day sentence orally pronounced at sentencing; and (3) the imposition of court costs should be reversed due to lack of prior notice. We affirm in part, and reverse in part.
We reject appellant’s equal protection, due process, and void for vagueness challenges to section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989), with the observation that the arguments advanced by appellant have been analyzed in depth and rejected numerous times by this court and other district courts of appeal. See, e.g., Wagner v. State, 578 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Wilson v. State, 574 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), review denied, 583 So. 2d 1038 (Fla.1991); Smith v. State, 573 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Akbar v. State, 570 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Barber v. State, 564 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 576 So. 2d 284 (Fla.1990); Arnold v. State, 566 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), review denied, 576 So. 2d 284 (Fla.1991); King v. State, 557 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 564 So. 2d 1086 (Fla.1990); Mitchell v. State, 575 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Collins v. State, 571 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Further, we decline to consider appellant’s argument that section 775.-084, Florida Statutes (1989), as amended by Chapter 89-280, Laws of Florida, violates the one subject rule of the Florida Constitution, see Art. Ill, § 6, Fla. Const. (1968), because appellant could have been sentenced as an habitual offender under the pre-amended version of the statute. See Jennings v. State, 413 So. 2d 24 (Fla.1982); Mitchell L. McNeil v. State, 588 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); King v. State, 585 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Wright v. State, 579 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
With respect to the second issue, it is well settled that the written sentencing order musí; conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. Timmons v. State, 453 So. 2d 143, 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Therefore, the written sentencing order which reflects a one year sentence for petit theft must be corrected to reflect the sixty day sentence orally pronounced at the sentencing proceeding.
The third issue concerns the imposition of court costs without prior notice. In State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139 (Fla.1991), the supreme court held that publication in Laws of Florida and Florida Statutes gives all citizens constructive notice of the consequences of their actions, and an opportunity to be heard is afforded at the sentencing hearing. Therefore, imposition of court costs without prior notice other than by publication does not offend due process. 580 So. 2d at 142.
Accordingly, this cause is remanded with directions to correct the written sentencing order to reflect a concurrent sixty-day sentence for petit theft, rather than the one year sentence presently shown. In all other respects, the convictions and sentences appealed are affirmed.
ALLEN, J., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
van Bryant v. State, 602 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…182 (Fla.1991). Appellant could have been ha-bitualized as a habitual violent felony offender under the pre-amended version of the statute and therefore cannot rely on the unconstitutionality of the amendment to void his sentence. See Hale v. State, 589 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); McNeil v. State, 588 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); King v. State, 585 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Wright v. State, 579 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s sentence as a habitual offender a…
-
Abney v. State, 623 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…to the other appellate point. The sentence imposed is defective in two regards under the facts and circumstances of this case. One, the written sentence in part deviates from the oral sentence imposed and thus requires resentencing. Hale v. State, 589 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA1991). Secondly, and more importantly, no written reasons are set forth in the record to justify the departure. Therefore, since we have no reason to feel the trial judge did not intend to depart from the guidelines, as he obviously did…
-
Luchak v. State, 606 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…da, because Luchak would have been habitual-ized under the pre-amended statute as well. See Ingram v. State, 599 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Gilbert v. State, 598 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (Warner, J., concurring specially); Hale v. State, 589 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); McNeil v. State, 588 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); King v. State, 585 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Wright v. State, 579 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment appealed from. OWEN, WILLIAM C…
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 (18 total)
- State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1991)
- Caracciolo v. State, 557 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Barber v. State, 564 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Arnold v. State, 566 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Timmons v. State, 453 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Wright v. State, 579 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Bush Wade Holland v. State, 585 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Jennings v. State, 413 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1982)
- McNEIL v. State, 588 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Ismail Abdul Hakim Akbar v. State, 570 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)