HERBERT DAVIS, 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 the trial court did not err in classifying the defendant as a habitual felony offender, but reversed the consecutive life sentences due to a change in law regarding mandatory sentencing.
Herbert Davis was convicted of sale and possession of cocaine near a school and sentenced as a habitual felony offender with consecutive life 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 Habitual Felony Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
Herbert Davis challenges his two consecutive life sentences as a habitual felony offender for the sale and possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school. § 893.13(l)(e)l., Fla. Stat. (1989). Davis raises two points on appeal. First, he claims that the trial court erred in classifying him as a habitual felony offender, subsection 775.084(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), because the court failed to require corroboration of some of his prior convictions. We find no merit in this argument and affirm the classification.
Second, Davis claims that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive life sentences authorized under subsection 775.-084(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), on the ground that they are disproportionate to the crimes and violate constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. Because we may effectively dispose of this case on nonconstitutional grounds, we decline to pass upon this issue. See Singletary v. State, 322 So. 2d 551 (Fla 1975). Instead, we reverse the appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing in light of Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1992), decided during the pendency of this appeal. See also King v. State, 597 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
At the time that Davis was sentenced, the enhanced penalty described in the habitual offender act was deemed mandatory once a defendant was classified as a habitual felony offender. In Burdick, however, the supreme court held that sentencing under the habitual offender act is permissive, not mandatory. Because the trial judge did not have the benefit of Burdick and King when sentencing the appellant, we do not know whether he would have imposed more lenient sentences. We therefore reverse the two life sentences and remand for resentencing in accordance with Bur-dick and King. See also Tucker v. State, 595 So. 2d 956 (Fla.1992).
Reversed and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wardell Farris Brown v. State, 613 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…ied, 602 So. 2d 942 (Fla.1992) (opinion filed on July 20, 1992). We, therefore, reverse and remand appellant’s habitual offender sentence because we do not know whether the trial judge would have imposed a more lenient sentence. See Davis v. State, 599 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Tucker v. State, 595 So. 2d 956 (Fla.1992). Appellant argues next that the court failed to make the required findings that appellant had not been pardoned or that one of his prior convictions had been set aside on postconviction…
-
Stewart v. State, 614 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…d DCA), review denied, 602 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 1992). We affirm the conviction, but reverse and remand appellant’s habitual offender sentence because we do not know whether the trial judge would have imposed a more lenient sentence. See Davis v. State, 599 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Tucker v. State, 595 So. 2d 956 (Fla.1992). Reversed and remanded to allow the judge to review the sentencing in light of Burdick and King. SCHOONOVER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.…
-
Davis v. State, 643 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…feet of a school. § 893.13(l)(e)l., Fla.Stat. (1989). The appellant was sentenced as a habitual felony offender to two consecutive life sentences. The appellant challenged the proportionality of the sentences to the subject crimes in Davis v. State, 599 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), and this court reversed appellant’s sentences and remanded for resentencing in accordance with Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1992), and King v. State, 597 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 602 So. 2d 942 (Fla.1992).…
Authorities Cited
- Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1992)
- Nadene Singletary v. State, 322 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1975)
- King v. State, 597 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Taylor v. State, 595 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1992)