ERVIN ALPHONSO BARTLEY, 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.
Ervin Alphonso Bartley appeals his habitual offender sentence, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for an evidentiary hearing on whether the habitual felony offender statute is applied in a racially disparate manner. The appellate court affirmed the sentence, finding that Bartley presented only general statistical evidence of racial bias without showing purposeful discrimination in his particular case.
The trial court did not err in denying the evidentiary hearing. Appellant failed to show purposeful discrimination in his particular case and offered only general statistical evidence of potential racial bias in the application of the statute.
[1] A defendant challenging the application of the habitual felony offender statute on grounds of racial disparity must present evidence of purposeful discrimination against…
[2] A trial court is not required to grant an evidentiary hearing on a claim of racial disparity in the application of the habitual felony offender statute when the defendant…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“the appellant in the instant case argues that the court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing so that he could have an expert witness testify that the Economic and Demographic Research Division report demonstrates that the habitual offender statute is applied in a racially discriminatory manner, but offered no showing of how the statute was applied in a racially discriminatory manner as to him”
Establishes the key deficiency in Bartley's argument: presentation of general statistical evidence without particularized proof of discrimination in his case
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBartley received an enhanced sentence as a habitual felony offender under Florida Statutes section 775.084. He filed a motion for an evidentiary heari…
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 Racial Discrimination In Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges his habitual offender sentence on the ground that the trial court erred in not granting appellant’s motion for an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether the habitual felony offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1991), is applied in a racially disparate manner. In Pittman v. State, 633 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), rev. denied, 642 So. 2d 747 (Fla.1994), this court affirmed a habitual felony offender sentence where the appellant had submitted statistical evidence which he alleged demonstrated that black defendants were more likely than white defendants to receive an enhanced sentence under the habitual offender statute. There, this court relied on Foster v. State, 614 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1992), to find that the appellant had not offered any evidence of purposeful discrimination against him particularly. Similarly, in Dawson v. State, 636 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), rev. denied, 648 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1994), this court affirmed appellant’s sentence as a habitual felony offender where appellant’s motion for an evidentiary hearing below referred only to data suggesting racial bias in a general sense, with no allegation that appellant was subjected to purposeful discrimination in his particular case.
As in Dawson, the appellant in the instant case argues that the court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing so that he could have an expert witness testify that the Economic and Demographic Research Division report demonstrates that the habitual offender statute is applied in a racially discriminatory manner, but offered no showing of how the statute was applied in a racially discriminatory manner as to him.
Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s sentence.
JOANOS, WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Foster v. State, 614 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1992)
- Pittman v. State, 633 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Parsons v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- Dawson v. State, 636 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)