ANDREW WILLIAMS, 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.
The court held that the trial court failed to follow the required procedure for sentencing under the applicable habitual offender statute.
Appellant was convicted of robbery with a firearm and first-degree murder. The trial court sentenced him to an extended term for the robbery convictio…
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 Extended Term Of Imprisonment cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Acting Chief Judge.
Andrew Williams appeals his convictions and sentences for robbery with a firearm and first degree murder. We find merit only in his contention that the trial court failed to follow the procedure required by the applicable version of the habitual offender statute in sentencing him to an extended term of imprisonment for the robbery conviction.
The robbery was committed on September 20, 1986, and, therefore, the trial court should have followed the procedure required by the 1985 version of the habitual offender statute. Smith v. State, 561 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Section 775.084(3), Florida Statutes (1985), required that the trial court determine in a separate proceeding whether sentencing the defendant to an extended term of imprisonment was necessary for the protection of the public from further criminal activity.
Accordingly, we reverse Williams’ sentence for robbery and remand for resentencing. The trial court may again sentence Williams as a habitual offender if the findings required by section 775.084(3), Florida Statutes (1985), are made.
THREADGILL and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parmley v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 254 So. 3d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
-
Jones v. Fla. Keys Cmty. Coll., 984 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…the hearing officer. As the Fifth District said in a similar case, “we strongly recommend that the agencfy] request an independent hearing officer from [*558] the Division of Administrative Hearings.” World Transp., Inc. v. Cent. Fla. Reg’l Transp., 641 So. 2d 913, 914 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The Community College relies on such cases as Bay Bank & Trust Co. v. Lewis, 634 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), Lash, Inc. v. Department of Business Regulation, 411 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and Meyer v. Department o…
Authorities Cited
- Culver v. State, 561 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Smith v. State, 561 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)