JOSEPH ALAN HENRY, 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.
Joseph Alan Henry appeals his sentences imposed as a habitual offender across multiple felonies and a misdemeanor. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, finding that the trial court violated sentencing law by imposing a habitual offender designation on a misdemeanor, improperly sentencing him as a habitual offender for a firearm possession charge, and erroneously believing enhanced penalties were mandatory.
The trial court erred in three respects: (1) a habitual offender sentence cannot be imposed on a misdemeanor; (2) the firearm possession charge could not support a habitual offender sentence because Henry was not originally sentenced under section 775.084; and (3) the trial court erroneously believed enhanced penalties were mandatory rather than discretionary, requiring resentencing on the remaining three felonies.
[1] A trial court cannot impose a habitual felony offender sentence on a misdemeanor conviction.
[2] A habitual offender sentence cannot be imposed if the defendant was not sentenced pursuant to the relevant statute at the time of the original offense.
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“First, a trial court cannot impose a habitual felony offender sentence on a misdemeanor.”
Establishes the primary legal error that habitual offender designations are prohibited for misdemeanors.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenry was convicted of four felonies (possession of a firearm, burglary of a structure, possession of burglary tools, and burglary) and one misdemeano…
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 Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
Joseph Alan Henry appeals the sentences imposed in three separate eases. The trial court sentenced Henry as a habitual offender for four felonies (possession of a firearm, burglary of a structure, possession of burglary tools, and burglary)1 and one misdemean-or (petit theft).2 We reverse the sentences and remand for correction of the sentencing order on the misdemeanor and for resentencing on the felonies.
First, a trial court cannot impose a habitual felony offender sentence on a misdemeanor. Teasley v. State, 610 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), review denied, 618 So. 2d 1370 (Fla.1993). This case must be remanded for the trial court to correct the written sentencing order by deleting the habitual offender designation for the petit theft.
The trial court also erred in sentencing Henry as a habitual offender for the possession of a firearm charge because Henry was not sentenced pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989) when the trial court originally placed him on probation for that offense. See Snead v. State, 616 So. 2d 964 (Fla.1993). The trial court upon remand must sentence Henry for the possession of a firearm conviction to a guidelines sentence with a permitted bump-up for each violation of probation. See Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1992).
Henry finally claims that he should be resentenced because the trial court mistakenly believed that the enhanced penalties were mandatory. The state argued that the trial court merely exercised its discretion in imposing enhanced penalties and was not under the mistaken impression that sentencing as a habitual offender was mandatory. We have reviewed the transcript of the sentencing hearing and conclude that the trial court erroneously thought that it was required to impose enhanced penalties. Because of this mistaken belief, these cases are remanded for the trial court to reconsider the sentences on the remaining three offenses (burglary of a structure, possession of burglary tools, and burglary) as within its discretion. See Bur-dick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1992).
Reversed and remanded.
HALL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur. . The trial court orally pronounced that it was sentencing Henry as a habitual offender for these crimes; however, the written judgment and order of probation for the burglary neither designates nor sentences Henry as a habitual felony offender. . Henry entered a plea of no contest to these offenses and also to criminal mischief and another count of petit theft. The record does not contain a judgment and sentence for the criminal mischief and second petit theft offenses.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Simpkins v. State, 784 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…der sentence. See Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267, 271 (Fla.1992) (remanding for reconsideration of sentence where trial court imposed habitual violent felony offender sentence in mistaken belief that such a sentence was mandatory); Henry v. State, 632 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (resentencing ordered where trial court had sentenced defendant while under the erroneous belief that habitual offender enhancement was mandatory). Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. PATTERSON, C.J., and STRINGER…
-
State v. Benjamin, 685 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…16 So. 2d 964 (Fla.1993); Williams v. State, 661 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). On remand, Benjamin should be sentenced to a guidelines sentence with a permitted one-cell bump for each violation of probation and community control. See Henry v. State, 632 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Accordingly, in case 95-10252, we reverse Benjamin’s sentence and remand for resen-tencing within the guidelines. In case 93-00603, we reverse the sentence and direct that the trial court sentence Benjamin to a guidelines senten…
-
Battle v. State, 710 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…e was agreeing to a habit-ualized sentence, there is no record evidence that the trial court in fact imposed an enhanced sentence. Consequently, it was error to sentence Battle as a habitual offender upon revocation of probation. See Henry v. State, 632 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Simon v. State, 684 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, we reverse and vacate Battle’s habitual offender sentence and remand this matter for further sentencing consideration consistent with thi…
Authorities Cited
- Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1992)
- Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1992)
- Snead v. State, 616 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 1993)
- Teasley v. State, 610 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)