HENRY MANSFIELD, 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.
Henry Mansfield appeals his sentence as a habitual offender following his no contest plea to grand theft and probation violation. The court affirms the sentence but remands to correct clerical errors in the sentencing documents.
The court affirmed that the failure to provide written notice of habitualization was harmless error because Mansfield's written waiver specifically stated he understood he would be habitualized if his plea was accepted, distinguishing this case from Ashley v. State. Any error in conducting the proceedings via video hookup was harmless because Mansfield had counsel present, was sworn in, received his negotiated sentence, and did not request withdrawal of his plea. The court remanded to correct clerical errors in the sentencing documents.
[1] A state's failure to provide written notice of habitualization prior to accepting a no contest plea is harmless error when the defendant, through plea negotiations and a…
[2] A defendant's waiver of the right to appear in person for plea proceedings via video hookup does not automatically waive the right to appear in person for sentencing proc…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“While a defendant must be given written notice of intent to habitualize prior to acceptance of a no contest plea, Ashley v. State, 614 So.2d 486 (Fla.1993); see Inmon v. State, 383 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), petition for review denied, 389 So.2d 1111 (Fla.1980), the state's failure to provide written notice here was harmless error.”
Establishes the legal requirement for written notice of habitualization but applies harmless error analysis to the state's failure to comply.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn February 1991, Mansfield pleaded no contest to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and discharging a firearm in public, receiving two year…
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 Scrivener'S Error cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Henry Mansfield seeks review of his sentence as a habitual offender and raises three points on appeal. We affirm the sentence, but remand to correct scrivener’s errors.
In February 1991, Mansfield pleaded no contest to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and discharging a firearm in public. He received two years’ probation. In June 1991, he was charged with grand theft. This offense was also the basis for an affidavit of probation violation.
On July 19, 1991, Mansfield filed a written waiver, agreeing to enter a plea by video hookup between the court and the jail. He pleaded no contest to the grand theft offense and admitted violating his probation. The court revoked his probation and sentenced him to five years as a habitual offender. Mansfield contends that his sentence was illegal because the state did not file a written notice of habitualization. While a defendant must be given written notice of intent to habitualize prior to acceptance of a no contest plea, Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1993); see Inmon v. State, 383 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), petition for review denied, 389 So. 2d 1111 (Fla.1980), the state’s failure to provide written notice here was harmless error. In the plea negotiation, Mansfield agreed to plead no contest in exchange for a sentence as a habitual offender. The written Acknowledgment and Waiver of Rights specifically states he understood that if the court accepted his plea, he would be habitualized. This fact distinguishes this case from Ashley, where, at the time the plea was accepted, the defendant had no personal understanding that he would be habitualized. 614 So. 2d at 491. We therefore affirm Mansfield’s sentence as a habitual offender. Mansfield next attacks his sentence because the trial judge conducted his plea and sentencing proceedings through the use of closed circuit television. Mansfield signed a waiver and agreed to enter a plea via video hookup, but the waiver did not address sentencing.
We have recently addressed this same issue based on a waiver containing the same language. Scott v. State, 618 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The facts in Scott and in this case are very similar. Both Scott and Mansfield had attorneys present during the videotape hearing, both were placed under oath by the trial judge, both received the precise sentences that they and their attorneys had negotiated and neither asked to withdraw his plea or showed any reason why such a request would be granted. For the reasons stated in Scott, we conclude that any error in accepting Mansfield’s plea and sentencing him via video hookup was harmless. We affirm.
As his final point on appeal, Mansfield asserts that scrivener’s errors in his sentence should be corrected. We agree. In case number 90-556, the court incorrectly imposed a five-year sentence for Count II and the written sentence incorrectly reflects that Mansfield was habitualized for Count I. On remand, these errors must be corrected. Mansfield need not be present for correction. Etlinger v. State, 577 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
Affirmed with instructions to correct scrivener’s errors.
SCHOONOVER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hannah v. State, 623 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…f the State’s intent to habitualize him, and that he voluntarily entered his plea with a full understanding of the consequences of being sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender. Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1993); Mansfield v. State, 618 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Brown v. State, 616 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Accordingly, we affirm the order summarily denying post-conviction relief but remind the trial court that it is its responsibility to attach the portions of the record which…
-
Arnold v. State, 631 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…ished written notice of the state’s intent to seek enhanced penalties against him pursuant to the habitual offender statute prior to entry of his pleas of guilty. Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1993). The appellee relies on Mansfield v. State, 618 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), as authority for its contention that the failure to provide written notice may be harmless error. Mansfield is distinguishable from this case, however, because there the defendant signed a written plea agreement in which he speci…
-
Erick L. Bath v. State, 639 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Mansfield v. State, 618 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). HERSEY, GLICKSTEIN and FARMER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1993)
- Inmon v. State, 383 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Short v. Short, 577 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Scott v. State, 618 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)