DENNIS ARNOLD, 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.
Dennis Arnold appeals his sentence, challenging the trial court's imposition of habitual offender enhancement without prior written notice as required by law. The court reversed the habitual offender enhancement in one case but affirmed it in others, and remanded for resentencing and correction of clerical errors in the sentencing documents.
The court reversed Arnold's sentence as a habitual offender in case 92-7417 because he was not provided written notice of the state's intent to seek enhanced penalties prior to his guilty plea, and unlike in Mansfield, there was no signed plea agreement indicating he understood the habitualization consequences. The court affirmed the habitual offender sentences in cases 92-1018 and 91-13730 despite the trial court's failure to make requisite statutory findings, finding the error harmless. The court remanded for resentencing in case 92-7417 and correction of clerical errors in the written sentences.
[1] A defendant must receive written notice of the state's intent to seek enhanced penalties under the habitual offender statute prior to entering a guilty plea.
[2] Failure to provide written notice of intent to seek habitual offender status may be harmless error if the defendant acknowledges understanding of habitualization in a wri…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“he was not furnished 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”
States the primary basis for reversing the habitual offender enhancement in case 92-7417
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArnold was sentenced in multiple cases (92-7417, 92-1018, and 91-13730). In case 92-7417, he received a plea of guilty without being furnished written…
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 Ministerial Error cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, Judge.
We reverse appellant’s sentence in case no. 92-7417 because he was not furnished 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 specifically stated that he understood that if the court accepted his plea that he would be habitualized. In the case at bar, the plea was not entered pursuant to an agreement and appellant did not sign any waivers. The appellant must be resentenced in case no. 92-7417 without habitual offender classification. Ashley.
The state concedes that a ministerial error appears in the written sentence as it does not correspond to the court’s oral pronouncements at the hearing. The trial court orally sentenced appellant to six months in the county jail on Count II in case no. 91-13730 to run consecutively to Count I in case no. 92-7417. The written sentence reflects that the jail sentence is to run consecutively to case no. 92-7417, without specifying Count I. This correction is especially significant because appellant was sentenced to ten years in prison on Count I and ten years probation on Count II in case no. 92-7417.
We affirm appellant’s sentence as a habitual offender in case nos. 92-1018 and 91-13730 despite the trial court’s failure to make requisite statutory findings, pursuant to sections 775.084(1)(a)1. and 2., Florida Statutes (1991). The record reflects that this error was harmless. Herrington v. State, 622 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (en banc); Dacosta v. State, 625 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). We again certify to the Supreme Court the question certified in Her-rington.
Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for resentencing and correction of clerical errors.
HERSEY and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson v. State, 645 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…entence of fifteen years, and a habitualized offender sentence of thirty years was imposed. We reversed the habitual offender sentence and instructed that on remand the defendant be sentenced in accordance with his plea. Second, in Arnold v. State, 631 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), our records reflect that the defendant had actual knowledge of intent to seek enhanced penalties, and his awareness of the consequences thereof was confirmed, but no written notice of intent was furnished. The defendant entered…
-
Arnold v. State, 645 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1994)…HARDING, Justice. We have for review Arnold v. State, 631 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), where the district court certified the same question it certified in Herrington v. State: WHETHER A TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO MAKE THE REQUISITE STATUTORY FINDINGS UNDER SECTION 775.084(l)(a) 1 AND 2 IS SUBJECT TO THE SAME HARML…
Authorities Cited
- Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1993)
- Herrington v. State, 622 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Mansfield v. State, 618 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Dacosta v. State, 625 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Sykes v. ST. Andrews Sch., 625 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)