RAY PRESLEY MCDONALD, 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.
Affirmed burglary and petit theft convictions but reversed 30-year habitual offender sentence because trial court failed to make required statutory finding that prior felony convictions had not been set aside.
A trial court must make the statutory finding under section 775.084(1)(a)4., Florida Statutes, that prior felony convictions have not been set aside before imposing a habitual offender sentence, regardless of whether the defendant raises this as an affirmative defense.
[1] A trial court must make the statutory finding required by section 775.084(1)(a)4., Florida Statutes, that prior felony convictions have not been set aside before imposing…
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 intelligenceRay Presley McDonald was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and petit theft and sentenced to 30 years as a habitual offender.…
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
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s convictions for burglary of a dwelling and petit theft finding that they are supported by the evidence and the law. However, appellant’s 30-year habitual offender sentence for the burglary must be reversed and the cause remanded for resentencing on that count because the trial court failed to make the finding required by section 775.084(1)(a)4., Florida Statutes (1989) that appellant’s prior felony convictions had not been set aside in any post-conviction proceeding. Jones v. State, 606 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (en banc). Pursuant to Rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, we certify the following question as one of great public importance:
DOES THE HOLDING IN EUTSEY V. STATE, 383 S0.2D 219 (FLA.1980) THAT THE STATE HAS NO BURDEN OF PROOF AS TO WHETHER THE CONVICTIONS NECESSARY FOR HABITUAL FELONY OFFENDER SENTENCING HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, IN THAT THIS IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AVAILABLE TO [A DEFENDANT], EUTSEY AT 226, RELIEVE THE TRIAL COURT OF ITS STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO MAKE FINDINGS REGARDING THIS FACTOR, IF THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY RAISE, AS A DEFENSE, THAT THE QUALIFYING CONVICTIONS PROVIDED BY THE STATE HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE?
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED for resentencing.
SMITH, WIGGINTON and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. White, 620 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1993)…PER CURIAM. The decision of the district court of appeal in White v. State, 609 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), is before this Court for review based on a certified question. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The decision under review is quashed and the case remanded for proceedings consistent with State v. Rucker, 613 So. 2d 460 (Fla.1993).…
Authorities Cited
- William v. Jones, 606 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)