DESI A. BARFIELD, 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's general finding that the defendant met the criteria for habitual offender status was insufficient to satisfy statutory requirements for specificity.
Following a conviction for sale and possession of cocaine, the state sought habitual offender sentencing based on two prior convictions. The evidence …
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 Specific Findings Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Desi A. Barfield has appealed from sentencing as an habitual offender following his conviction of sale and possession of cocaine. We reverse and remand for resentencing.
Following Barfield’s conviction, the state filed notice of its intent to seek habitual felony offender sentencing, and introduced two qualifying convictions, one in 1986 and one in 1989. The evidence at sentencing showed that Barfield was on probation for the 1986 offense at the time of the 1989 offense, that he completed his sentence for the 1989 offense and resumed the 1986 probationary term, and that he was serving that probationary term when he committed the instant crimes. Based on the foregoing evidence, the trial court herein found generally that Barfield “[met] the various ... criteria of habitual offender,” and imposed an habitual offender sentence.
The habitual offender statute requires that certain findings of fact be made before the enhanced penalties afforded by that statute may be applied. Section 775.-084(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1989). Further, the Supreme Court has found that the legislature intended that those findings of fact be made with specificity. Walker v. State, 462 So. 2d 452, 454 (Fla.1985). The trial court’s general finding that Barfield met the “various” criteria for habitual offender classification does not meet the foregoing statutory requirement. Therefore, the sentence imposed herein is reversed, and the case remanded for resentencing. See also Knickerbocker v. State, 604 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Rome v. State, 603 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Reversed and remanded for resentencing.
JOANOS, C.J., and ERVIN and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gaines v. State, 605 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…Therefore, the habitual offender sentence imposed herein must be reversed, and the case remanded for resentencing. See Knickerbocker v. State, 604 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Rome v. State, 603 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Barfield v. State, 605 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing. JOANOS, C.J., and ERVIN and ALLEN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Bennie Lee Walker v. State, 462 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1985)
- Knickerbocker v. State, 604 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Butler v. State, 603 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Rome v. State, 603 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)