BRUCE A. GAINES, 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 habitual felony offender sentence must be reversed because the trial court failed to make specific findings required by statute.
Following a conviction for grand theft, the state presented evidence of prior felony convictions. The trial court found the defendant had prior feloni…
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
PER CURIAM.
Bruce A. Gaines has appealed from sentencing as an habitual felony offender, following his conviction of grand theft. We reverse, and remand for resentencing.
At the sentencing hearing following Gaines’ conviction, the state presented certified copies of seven prior felony convictions. The trial court orally found that Gaines had prior felony convictions, section 775.084(l)(a)l., Florida Statutes, but did not find that the current felony was committed within five years of the date of conviction of the last prior felony, that Gaines had not been pardoned for any qualifying offense, nor that none of the qualifying offenses had been set aside in a post-conviction proceeding. Sections 775.084(l)(a)2.-4., Fla. Stat. The court then found Gaines qualified as an habitual felony offender, and sentenced him as such.
The habitual offender statute requires that the findings enumerated in section 775.084(l)(a) be made by a preponderance of the evidence before the enhanced penalties afforded by that statute may be applied. Section 775.084(3)(d), Fla.Stat. The Supreme Court has found a legislative intent that the findings be made with specificity. Walker v. State, 462 So. 2d 452, 454 (Fla.1985). A review of the record shows that the trial court made no findings, specific or otherwise, on three of the four enumerated factors. 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 resentencing.
JOANOS, C.J., and ERVIN and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
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)
- Desi A. Barfield v. State, 605 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)