RONNIE BRISTOL, 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 erred by believing it had no discretion in determining the sentence length for a habitual felony offender.
The defendant was sentenced as a habitual felony offender. The trial court stated it had no discretion regarding the sentence length, believing it was…
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 Permissive Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Chief Judge.
Ronnie Bristol appeals his habitual felony offender sentence, arguing that the trial court was mistaken when it stated that it had no discretion regarding the length of Bristol’s sentence. We reverse because the record supports that the trial court did not feel that it had any discretion in determining the sentence once it determined that Bristol should be designated as a habitual felony offender. The record reflects that the trial court knew that it had discretion to sentence Bristol under the guidelines or under the habitual felony offender statute. The trial court then determined that for the protection of the public that Bristol should be sentenced as a habitual felony offender. However, the record also supports that the trial court did not believe Bristol deserved life, but believed it had no choice regarding the length of Bristol’s sentence. The trial court noted that Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1992), did not apply to this case because the trial court sentenced Bristol under the 1995 version of the habitual felony offender statute and Burdick addressed the 1989 version.
Recently, in State v. Hudson, 698 So. 2d 831, 832 (Fla.1997), the supreme court reiterated that sentencing under the habitual felony offender statute is permissive, not mandatory. The supreme court cited Burdick and noted that sentencing under section 775.084(4)(a) and (b) is permissive and not mandatory. See Hudson, 698 So. 2d at 832. Upon remand, the trial court may reconsider the length of Bristol’s habitual felony offender sentence because it is within its discretion to do so.
Reversed and remanded.
NORTHCUTT, J., and RONDOLINO, ANTHONY, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stephens v. State, 974 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…amental sentencing error had occurred. Thus, Mr. Stephens was deprived of a real opportunity to have his sentence reconsidered. Mr. Stephens has highlighted the inequity of his situation by comparing it to that of the appellant in Bristol v. State, 710 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). According to Mr. Stephens, Mr. Bristol was sentenced by the same judge to life in prison as a HFO on the very same day that Mr. Stephens was sentenced. (The web site of the Sarasota County Clerk of the Circuit Court confirms this…
-
Sloan v. State, 884 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…licable. State v. Gibron, 478 So. 2d 475, 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to exercise its discretion as to whether withholding adjudication of guilt is appropriate. See Bristol v. State, 710 So. 2d 761, 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Reversed and remanded. KELLY and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Hudson, 698 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1997)