JOHN HOWARD, 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 failure to make specific findings for habitual felony offender status was harmless error under the circumstances.
John Howard was convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer and sentenced as a habitual felony offender. The state sought this classification ba…
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 Anders V. California Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
John Howard has appealed from an habitual felony offender sentence imposed after his conviction of battery on a law enforcement officer. We affirm.
After Howard’s conviction, the state sought habitual felony offender classification based on three Florida felony convictions occurring in 1987 and 1989. Howard did not dispute these convictions, and the trial court sentenced him to 6 years as an habitual felony offender without making the findings set forth at section 775.-084(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989).
Howard’s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), averring that he can make no good faith argument for reversal. In its answer brief, the state notes an issue under Anderson v. State, 592 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), jurisdiction accepted, 613 So. 2d 465, to wit: the trial court’s failure to make the findings set forth at section 775.-084(l)(a). In a pro se initial brief, Howard alleges the unconstitutionality of section 775.084(l)(a) as amended by Ch. 89-280, see Johnson v. State, 589 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), approved 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1993), as well as several scoresheet errors.
As to the trial court’s failure to make the findings set forth at section 775.084(l)(a), we find that, under the circumstances of this case, the error was harmless. See State v. Rucker, 613 So. 2d 460 (Fla. February 4, 1993). The issues raised by Howard pro se are without merit. See Robinson v. State, 603 So. 2d 50, 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (the single-subject constitutionality issue will not be considered if the appellant would have been habitualized under the pre-amendment statute); § 775.084(4)(e), Fla.Stat. (habitual offender sentences are not subject to the sentencing guidelines).
Affirmed.
JOANOS, C.J., and ERVIN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 627 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…ord and the sentencing transcript, we find that Appellant met all of the prerequisites for habitual felony offender classification under section 775.084(1)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988). McCall v. State, 616 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1993); Howard v. State, 615 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Further, we note that the constitutionality of the 1988 version of section 775.084 has been challenged on identical grounds in numerous prior decisions and has been upheld. See, e.g., Pittman v. State, 570 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st…
-
Shinault v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. Rucker, 613 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1993)
- Johnson v. State, 589 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Anderson v. State, 592 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- State v. Anderson, 613 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1993)
- Robinson v. State, 603 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)