STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
LEWIS D. CRITTON, RESPONDENT
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 state does not have the burden to prove that prior convictions have not been pardoned or set aside for habitual offender sentencing; these are affirmative defenses for the defendant. However, the trial court must still make findings regarding these factors if the defendant raises them.
The First District Court of Appeal certified a question regarding the state's burden of proof for habitual felony offender sentencing, specifically wh…
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
[*476] SHAW, Justice.
We have for review Critton v. State, 604 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), wherein the court certified the same question that was certified in Anderson v. State, 592 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992):
Does the holding in Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 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 pardoned or set aside, in that they are “affirmative defenses available to [a defendant],” Eutsey at 226, relieve the trial court of its statutory obligation to make findings regarding those factors, if the defendant does not affirmatively raise, as a defense, that the qualifying convictions provided by the state have been pardoned or set aside?
Anderson, 592 So. 2d at 1121. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answered this question in the negative in State v. Rucker, 613 So. 2d 460 (Fla.1993), but held that harmless error analysis may be applied on appeal. We quash the decision of the district court in Critton and remand for proceedings consistent with Rucker, which applies to both habitual felony offenders and habitual violent felony offenders.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Critton v. State, 619 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…pinion, we certified a question to the supreme court. The supreme court has now answered the certified question, quashed our previous opinion, and remanded for proceedings consistent with State v. Rucker, 613 So. 2d 460 (Fla.1993). State v. Critton, 613 So. 2d 475 (Fla.1993). Accordingly, we vacate our previous opinion and substitute the following. The appellant challenges judgments of conviction and habitual violent felony offender sentences, as well as a restitution order. The appellant has not established…
Authorities Cited
- Fredford James Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Rucker, 613 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1993)
- Anderson v. State, 592 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Critton v. State, 604 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)