MARK DACOSTA, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court held that a trial court's failure to make statutory findings of fact regarding prior felony convictions in habitual offender sentencing constitutes harmless error when the evidence of those convictions is unrebutted and undisputed. The decision clarifies that determining prior convictions is a ministerial task requiring no subjective analysis, and thus the omission of findings does not require reversal in such circumstances.
The court held that the trial court's failure to make findings of fact regarding prior convictions is harmless error when the evidence of those convictions is unrebutted. Because determining whether a defendant has prior felony convictions is a ministerial determination involving no subjective analysis, the omission of findings does not require reversal in cases where the prior convictions are undisputed and easily discernible from the record.
[1] A trial court's failure to make statutory findings regarding prior convictions for habitual offender sentencing is subject to harmless error analysis when the evidence of…
[2] The determination of whether a criminal defendant has prior felony convictions is a ministerial act that does not involve subjective analysis.
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“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 2.1 where the evidence of the prior convictions is unrebutted”
Establishes the core holding that omission of statutory findings regarding prior convictions is harmless error when those convictions are undisputed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMark DaCosta was sentenced as a habitual offender on Count I based on prior felony convictions. At sentencing, DaCosta acknowledged serving prison tim…
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 Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
HARDING, Justice.
We have for review DaCosta v. State, 625 So. 2d 1317 (Fla.4th DCA 1993), in which 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)l 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 UNREBUTTED.
Herrington, 622 So. 2d 1339, 1341 (Fla.4th DCA 1993), approved, 643 So. 2d 1078 (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 2.1 where the evidence of the prior convictions is unrebutted.
As in Herrington, the evidence of Da-Costa’s prior convictions, which were used to sentence him as an habitual offender on Count I, was unrebutted. At sentencing, DaCosta acknowledged serving prison time, and his attorney stipulated that DaCosta qualified to be sentenced as an habitual offender. The trial court did not, however, 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 is easily discernible from the record and thus allows for meaningful appellate review.
We emphasize, 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 in cases where there are questions about prior convictions.
Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the affirmative. We approve the decision of the district court affirming DaCosta’s sentence as an habitual offender for Count I.
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
-
Whitehead v. State, 654 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…entencing 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 order which deviates from the oral pronouncement…
-
Watson v. State, 679 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…equired as the basis for such sentence shall be found to exist by a preponderance of the evidence,” there is no specific requirement that the court orally dictate such findings into the record or reduce them to writing. However, in DaCosta v. State, 647 So. 2d 818, 819 (Fla.1994), in response to a certified question as to whether the harmless error rule could apply in this situation, the supreme court stated: We recently answered this certified question in the affirmative in Herrington v. State, 643 So. 2d 1…
-
Evans v. State, 706 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…was unaware of the consequences of being sentenced as an habitual offender. Evans’ stipulation that he qualified as an habitual offender renders any failure by the trial court to make a formal finding on this issue harmless error. DaCosta v. State, 647 So. 2d 818 (Fla.1994). AFFIRMED. HARRIS and ANTOON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Rucker, 613 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1993)
- Herrington v. State, 622 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Herrington v. State, 643 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 1994)
- Dacosta v. State, 625 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Sykes v. ST. Andrews Sch., 625 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)