WILLIE HARRIS, 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.
Willie Harris appealed his resentencing as a habitual offender, claiming the new sentence violated double jeopardy protections and was impermissibly harsher than his original sentence. The court affirmed the habitual offender sentence, holding that the original trial court's failure to impose habitualization was based on an erroneous understanding of law, not judicial discretion, and that resentencing on remand carried no vindictive purpose.
The court affirmed the habitual offender sentence, rejecting Harris's double jeopardy and vindictiveness claims. The original trial court's failure to impose habitualization was based on erroneous legal reasoning, not judicial discretion, and when Harris chose to appeal, he risked having the trial court's legal error corrected. The resentencing was effected without vindictiveness.
[1] A defendant who appeals a conviction and sentence risks having a trial court's misperception of the law corrected upon remand.
[2] Resentencing a defendant to a habitual offender status after a successful appeal by the state regarding the applicability of habitualization does not violate the prohibit…
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 any event, it is apparent that the trial court would have originally sentenced Harris as a habitual offender but for the uncertainty in the then state of the law regarding the habitualization of first degree felonies punishable by life.”
Establishes that the original non-habitualization sentence was based on the trial court's erroneous legal understanding, not the exercise of discretion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarris was convicted of armed robbery and resisting an officer without violence. At initial sentencing, the trial court imposed a 27-year guidelines s…
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 Gain Time Eligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Chief Judge.
Willie Harris has appealed from the trial court’s imposition of a habitual offender sentence after remand from an unsuccessful appeal to this court, claiming that his new sentence is harsher and violates the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. We reject his argument and affirm.
Harris was convicted of robbery while armed with a firearm and resisting an officer without violence. At his sentencing, the state requested habitual offender sanctions.
The trial court did not impose them but only because the trial court agreed with Harris that a first degree felony punishable by life was not subject to habitualization.
Accordingly, Harris was given a guidelines sentence of 27 years. He appealed the convictions and sentence, and the state cross appealed the question of whether habitualization was properly refused.
This court affirmed the convictions, held that first degree felonies punishable by life were subject to habitualization, and reversed and remanded for resentencing. Harris v. State, 593 So. 2d 301 (Fla.2d DCA 1992).
At the hearing on remand Harris argued that once he had begun to serve a legal sentence, resentencing him to a more severe sanction offends North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969).
The trial court rejected the argument and, in accordance with our mandate, sentenced him as a habitual offender to the same 27 year term of imprisonment. We acknowledge, but only in passing and not as an issue in this proceeding, that the loss of gain time flowing from habitualization results in Harris’ serving a period of actual incarceration greater than that of the original sentence of the same term. Under his original, non-habitual offender sentence he would have been eligible to acquire gain time.
In any event, it is apparent that the trial court would have originally sentenced Harris as a habitual offender but for the uncertainty in the then state of the law regarding the habitualization of first degree felonies punishable by life. Harris, in essence, received his initial guidelines sentence somewhat as a matter of grace based upon the arguments he advanced at sentencing. This was not the situation where a judge habitualizes a defendant but exercises his discretion not to sentence him to an enhanced term. See King v. State, 597 So. 2d 309 (Fla.2d DCA 1992) (en banc).
When he chose to appeal from his convictions and sentences, however, Hands risked having the trial court’s misperception of the law corrected. The imposition of the habitual offender sentence, pursuant to the mandate of this court, was effected without a scintilla of the vindictiveness focused upon in North Carolina v. Pearce. See Wood v. State, 582 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
Accordingly, we affirm.
CAMPBELL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. State, 645 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1994)…OVERTON, Justice. We review Hams v. State, 624 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), in which the district court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause [*387] did not bar the imposition of a habitual offender sentence. We have jurisdiction based on conflict with Davis v. State, 587 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). A…
-
Smith v. State, 630 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Harris v. State, 624 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); State v. Smith, 597 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). PARKER, A.C.J., BLUE, J., and LUTEN, CLAIRE K., Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Stauderman v. State, 261 So. 3d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1969)
- King v. State, 597 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Wood v. State, 582 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Harris v. State, 593 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)