DENNIS ARNOLD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 1994-11-17
No. 83359
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
645 So. 2d 418 Florida Supreme Court (1994) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court held that a trial court's failure to make statutory findings under Section 775.084(1)(a) regarding habitual offender status is harmless error when the evidence of prior convictions is unrebutted, because determining prior convictions is a ministerial, not subjective, determination.


Holding

The court answered the certified question in the affirmative, holding that the trial court's failure to make findings of fact is harmless error when the evidence of prior convictions is unrebutted, because determining whether a defendant has prior convictions is a ministerial determination involving no subjective analysis.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court's failure to make statutory findings under section 775.084(1)(a)1. …

[2] The determination of whether a criminal defendant has prior felony convictions is a ministerial determination, not requiring subjective analysis.

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

Key Quotes

“because ascertaining whether a criminal defendant has prior felony convictions is a ministerial determination, it is harmless error when a trial court fails to make findings of fact under sections 775.084(l)(a)l. and 2 where the evidence of prior convictions is unrebutted.”

Establishes the core holding that failure to make statutory findings regarding prior convictions is harmless error when evidence is unrebutted

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Dennis Arnold was convicted and sentenced as a habitual offender in two cases. The trial court failed to make the requisite findings of fact under Sec…

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.


Opinion of the Court
HARDING, Justice.

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 HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS CONTAINED IN STATE v. RUCKER, 613 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1993) WHERE THE EVIDENCE OF THE PRIOR CONVICTIONS WHICH QUALIFY A DEFENDANT AS AN HABITUAL OFFENDER IS UNREBUT-TED.

Herrington, 622 So. 2d 1339, 1341 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), review granted, 632 So. 2d 1026 (Fla.1994). We have jurisdiction based on article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.

We recently answered this certified question in the affirmative in Herrington v. State, 643 So. 2d 1078 (Fla.1994). We held that because ascertaining whether a criminal defendant has prior felony convictions is a ministerial determination, it is harmless error when a trial court fails to make findings of fact under sections 775.084(l)(a)l. and 2

where the evidence of prior convictions is unrebutted.

As in Herrington, the evidence of Arnold’s prior convictions was unrebutted, but the trial court did not make findings of fact as required by section 775.084(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1991).

As we stated in Herrington, whether a criminal defendant has prior convictions is a ministerial determination that involves no subjective analysis. A ministerial determination can be discerned easily from the record and thus allows meaningful appellate review.

We stress, as we did in Herrington, that while the trial court’s failure to make findings in this case is harmless error, it is error nonetheless and could require reversal if there were questions about the prior convictions.

Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the affirmative. We approve the decision of the district court affirming Arnold’s sentences as an habitual offender in case numbers 92-1018 and 91-13730.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. . Section 775.084(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1991). provides in relevant part:

(a) "Habitual felony offender" means a defendant for whom the court may impose an extended term of imprisonment, as provided in this section, if it finds that:
1. The defendant has previously been-convicted of any combination of two or more felonies in this state or other qualified offenses;

2. The felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced was committed within 5 years of the date of the conviction of the last prior felony or other qualified offense of which he was convicted, or within 5 years of the defendant's release, on parole or otherwise, from a prison sentence or other commitment imposed as a result of a prior conviction for a felony or other qualified offense, whichever is later....


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Venero v. State, 741 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
    …PER CURIAM. We affirm the judgment entered below in all respects. See § 790.235, Fla. Stat. (1997); State v. Maxwell, 682 So. 2d 83 (Fla.1996); Arnold v. State, 645 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1994); Johnson v.. State, 726 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Higgs v. State, 695 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Love v. State, 569 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); State v. Coron, 411 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We recognize that our positio…
  • Whitehead v. State, 654 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
    …next contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a habitual felony offender. We find no merit in this contention. See Herrington v. State, 643 So. 2d 1078 (Fla.1994), aff’g, 622 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); see also Arnold v. State, 645 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1994); DaCosta v. State, 647 So. 2d 818 (Fla.1994); State v. Rucker, 613 So. 2d 460 (Fla.1993); Tarver v. State, 617 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 629 So. 2d 135 (Fla.1993). Accordingly we reverse the portion of the sentencing ord…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw