JOSEPH GRADY CROSBY, 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.
A trial court must make the requisite findings mandated by statute to classify a defendant as a habitual felony offender, and introduction of prior convictions without objection does not waive this requirement.
The defendant was sentenced as a habitual felony offender, but the trial court failed to make the specific findings required by section 775.084, Flori…
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 Violent Felony Offender cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
Once again, the validity of classification as a habitual felony offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1991), is called into question because the trial court failed to make the requisite findings mandated by the statute. We reverse.
In the case at bar, certified copies of the prior felony convictions were introduced at the sentencing hearing without objection. Nonetheless, this does not result in a waiver of the statutory requirements. Simultaneously with the release of this case, our court has issued Wilson v. State, 605 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), which rejects the effectiveness of a waiver. It is true, however, that our Wilson opinion is somewhat critical of the state of the law. Nonetheless, we must follow it.
We certify the same question which we asked of our Supreme Court in Wilson and in Van Bryant v. State, 602 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
This cause is hereby reversed and remanded for resentencing. On remand, after making the requisite findings supported by evidence, the defendant may again be sentenced as a habitual offender. We find no merit to the remaining point on appeal.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilford L. Lang v. State, 758 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…consequences of a guilty plea may warrant remanding the case to the trial court to either conduct an evidentiary hearing on the allegation or to attach those portions of the record showing the movant is not entitled to relief. See Muschett v. State, 609 So. 2d 630, 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)(remanding where defendant alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel misled him regarding the gain time and control release consequences of his plea to attempted murder); Regan v. State, 730 So. 2d 828,…
-
Mobley v. State, 662 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…lleged misrepresentations about eligibility for gain time credits. See Carmichael v. State, 631 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Young v. State, 604 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Gaines v. State, 630 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Muschett v. State, 609 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Corbitt v. State, 584 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Accordingly, we remand this matter for an evidentiary hearing for the court to determine whether Mobley was, in fact, incorrectly advised about his eligibility for gain time…
Authorities Cited
- van Bryant v. State, 602 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Wilson v. State, 605 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)