JEROME BANES, 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 while the conviction is affirmed, the sentence as a habitual offender must be reversed because the trial court failed to make the required statutory findings.
Appellant was convicted and sentenced as a habitual offender. The appellate court reviewed the conviction and sentence.…
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 Burden Of Proof In Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
DELL, Judge.
We affirm appellant’s conviction. We reject appellant’s argument that the record affirmatively shows a vindictive motivation on the part of the trial court when it sentenced him as a habitual offender. However, we reverse appellant’s sentence as a habitual offender because the trial court failed to make the requisite findings pursuant to section 775.084(l)(a), Florida Stat utes (1989). See Rolle v. State, 586 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Simon v. State, 589 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Anderson v. State, 592 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We also adopt the question certified by the First District Court of Appeal in Anderson, and certify it as one of great public importance:
Does the holding in Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1980) that the state has no burden of proof as to whether the convictions necessary for habitual felony offender sentencing have been pardoned or set aside, in that they are “affirmative defenses available to [a defendant],” Eutsey at 226, relieve the trial court of its statutory obligation to make findings regarding those factors, if the defendant does not affirmatively raise, as a defense, that the qualifying convictions provided by the state have been pardoned or set aside?
Id. 592 So. 2d at 1121.
On remand, the trial court may again sentence appellant as a habitual offender provided it makes findings, supported by evidence, as required by section 775.-084(l)(a). See Meehan v. State, 526 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and WARNER, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fredford James Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1980)
- Anderson v. State, 592 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Rolle v. State, 586 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Simon v. State, 589 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- 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)