PAUL DANIELS, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed an illegal habitual offender sentence because the trial court failed to make all statutorily required findings of fact, which constitutes fundamental error correctable at any time.
A trial court's failure to make all specific findings of fact required by statute before imposing an habitual offender sentence constitutes fundamental error resulting in an illegal sentence that must be corrected regardless of contemporaneous objection.
[1] Failure to make all specific findings of fact required by statute before imposing an habitual felony offender sentence constitutes fundamental error resulting in an illeg…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was adjudicated guilty of felony petit theft committed in September 1985 and sentenced to ten years as an habitual felony offender in March …
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 Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his “Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence.” We reverse and remand.
In March 1988, appellant was adjudicated guilty of a felony petit theft which had been committed in September 1985. The trial court sentenced appellant to ten years in prison, as an habitual felony offender. Section 775.084(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1985). Appellant appealed to this court, which reversed the sentence and remanded for re-sentencing because “the factual recitations justifying the enhanced sentence ... [were] not supported by the record.” Daniels v. State, 545 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
On remand, the trial court again found appellant to be an habitual felony offender; and again sentenced him to ten years in prison. However, in doing so, the trial court failed to make all of the specific findings of fact required by statute before an habitual offender sentence may be imposed. The failure to make the requisite findings is fundamental error, resulting in an illegal sentence which may be corrected at any time, regardless of whether or not a contemporaneous objection has been made. See Walker v. State, 462 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1985). Accordingly, we must again reverse and remand to the trial court with directions that it resentence appellant.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
ERVIN, KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…tion. The supreme court has never held that, if the fundamental error concerning habitual offender findings is not raised in the direct appeal, it is reviewable many years later by means of an unsworn rule 3.800(a) motion.3 But see Daniels v. State, 593 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (Walker error reviewed on appeal of the denial of a “Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence” where it appears that the appeal was similar to a direct appeal of a sentence imposed on remand). To the extent that the holdings or rat…
-
McGAHEE v. State, 600 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…conviction as constituting a violation of the defendant’s double jeopardy privilege as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court in Cleveland v. State, 587 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1991), rendered subsequent to the trial in this case. See also Cruz v. State, 593 So. 2d 312, 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Davis v. State, 590 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). We affirm, however, the judgment of conviction and sentence for attempted manslaughter based on a holding that the complained-of jury instructions do not present reversibl…
-
Mendoza v. State, 941 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…uble jeopardy clause bars both a conviction and sentence for the crime of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Cleveland v. State, 587 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1991); Allen v. State, 643 So. 2d 87, 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Cruz v. State, 593 So. 2d 312, 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). We agree with Mendoza that his attempted first degree murder conviction was enhanced. As the State correctly concedes, Mendoza’s conviction for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony should thus be revers…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Daniels v. State, 545 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)