BOBBY MURRAY, 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.
On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, the Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed whether a trial court's failure to make express findings on habitual felony offender (HFO) sentencing criteria constituted reversible error. The court held that where the evidence of prior convictions was uncontradicted and unrefuted by the defendant, the absence of specific findings was harmless error, and the HFO sentence was properly affirmed.
The absence of specific HFO findings on the record constitutes harmless error when the evidence of prior convictions was neither refuted nor questioned by the defendant. Therefore, the HFO sentence may be affirmed without remand for resentencing.
[1] A trial court's failure to make express factual findings regarding habitual felony offender sentencing criteria constitutes harmless error when the defendant does not con…
[2] A defendant's concession regarding the existence of an extensive prior criminal record can render harmless the trial court's lack of specific findings for habitual felony…
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“In short, the evidence of HFO-qualifying prior convictions was neither refuted nor questioned by defendant. This case is thus indistinguishable from our en banc decision today in Herrington v. State, 622 So.2d 1339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).”
Establishes the court's reasoning that lack of contradiction by defendant makes the absence of findings harmless error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMurray was convicted and sentenced as a habitual felony offender. At sentencing, the state presented a Department of Corrections package showing Murra…
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 Felony Offender cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, Judge.
This case is back before us upon the Mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida. In our earlier decision in this case, we had affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence to make specific factual findings as to whether defendant qualified for habitual felony offender [HFO] sentencing. Murray v. State, 602 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). On review the supreme court quashed our decision and returned the case to us for a determination as to whether it is really necessary in light of State v. Rucker, 613 So. 2d 460 (Fla.1993), to send this case back to the trial court for resentencing. Murray v. State, 616 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1993). We now turn to that determination.
At the original sentencing hearing, the trial court made no express findings as to any of the HFO statutory criteria. Although the record shows that one month before the sentencing hearing the state had filed certified copies of some prior convictions, it is not clear whether those documents were even acknowledged or talked about, much less actually received in evidence. Yet at the sentencing hearing, the following (in part) transpired:
[THE STATE]: * * * At this time I will submit and move in evidence the PEN Pack [sic] from the Department of Corrections showing the Defendant’s listing the Defendant’s prior history including Informations, Judgments, and Sentences and prior guidelines sheets. I would ask the Court to review those pri-or to the imposition of sentence.
THE COURT: All right. Any objection to receiving them in evidence, Mr. Mason?
[DEFENSE]: No, I have reviewed them.
Later in the proceedings, defense counsel candidly said “I do not make light of the fact that Mr. Murray has an extensive record. I have gone through it. I know that it does in fact exist.”
The only basis asserted by defense counsel to avoid a HFO sentence was to argue that the unique aspects of the current offense, in which defendant had unsuccessfully contended that he had lawful possession of the property found to have been stolen, suggested more lenient treatment. Arguing for a HFO sentence, the state said: “He has got 20 prior convictions including 8 grand thefts.” Defendant did not contest or contradict that statement.
In short, the evidence of HFO-qualifying prior convictions was neither refuted nor questioned by defendant. This case is thus indistinguishable from our en banc decision today in Herrington v. State, 622 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Hence, conceding that the court made no finding on the record here even as to the fact of prior convictions within the requisite time period, as in Herrington we nevertheless find that the utter lack of specific HFO findings in this ease is plainly harmless error. Applying the holding in Rucker, therefore, we now affirm the HFO sentence as well as the conviction.
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Rucker, 613 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1993)
- Herrington v. State, 622 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Murray v. State, 602 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Murray v. State, 616 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1993)