JOSEPH ROWE, 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 reversed the defendant's habitual offender sentence a second time because the trial judge failed to make the required statutory findings under the 1987 version of Florida's habitual offender statute.
A trial judge must make the specific findings required by the 1987 version of section 775.084 before imposing a habitual offender sentence, including a finding that such sentence is necessary for public protection.
[1] A trial court must comply with the statutory version of the habitual offender law in effect at the time of sentencing, not a later amended version, and must make all requ…
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 intelligenceRowe was convicted of robbery by force and sentenced as a habitual offender. On the first appeal, the court reversed and remanded for resentencing due…
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 Sentencing Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is the second time the sentencing procedures in this case have been appealed to this court. In Rowe v. State, 579 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 589 So. 2d 292 (Fla.1991), we affirmed appellant’s conviction of robbery by force but reversed and remanded his habitual offender sentence for failure of the trial judge to make the necessary findings pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1987). On remand, the trial judge has again failed to make the necessary findings to habitualize appellant pursuant, to the applicable 1987 version of section 775.084. The trial judge has clearly applied the 1988 modification to the statute which deleted the 1987 version’s requirement that the trial judge before sentencing a defendant pursuant to the habitual offender law shall make “a finding that the imposition of sentence under this section is necessary for the protection of the public from further criminal activity by the defendant_” See § 775.084(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1987).
We again reverse appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing. On remand, the trial court may again impose a habitual offender sentence if the proper findings pursuant to the applicable 1987 version of the habitual offender statute are made.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and HALL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.