THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES BELL, 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 State failed to provide adequate notice and preserve the issue for appeal regarding sentencing the defendant as a violent career criminal.
[1] A general notice of intent to seek enhanced penalties under section 775.084, Florida Statutes, does not provide a defendant with sufficient notice of a specific classific…
[2] A defendant must receive specific written notice prior to a plea of the state's intent to seek a violent career criminal sentence enhancement.
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 intelligenceThe defendant was charged with several offenses and pled no contest. The State sought to enhance his sentence as a violent career criminal, but failed…
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 Violent Career Criminal Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
FLETCHER, Judge.
The State of Florida appeals from the decision of the trial court to sentence the defendant, James Bell, under the guidelines despite his qualification as a violent career criminal. We affirm.
James Bell was charged by information with burglary with assault or battery while armed, unlawful possession of a firearm by a violent career criminal, attempted armed robbery, and attempted robbery. Prior to the plea, the State filed a general notice of intent to seek enhanced penalties pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1997). Bell pled no contest and the trial court sentenced him to thirteen years on each count as an habitual felony offender, to run concurrently. After acceptance of the plea and imposition of sentence, the State perfunctorily objected on the basis that the defendant qualified to be sentenced as a violent career criminal.
The State failed to provide specific written notice of its intent to seek an enhanced “Gort” sentence under 775.084(3)(b)l, Florida Statutes (1997), pri-or to the plea. Section 775.084 contains the definitions, procedures, and sentencing penalties for three separate classifications — violent career criminals (the Gort sentencing enhancements), habitual felony offenders, and habitual violent felony offenders. For the State to give notice, as it did in this case, to the defendant that it intends to seek “imposition of an enhanced penalty pursuant to 775.084, Florida Statutes” does not give the defendant any useful notice of what particular classification, and hence penalty, she or he may be subject to upon conviction.
Furthermore, the State did not preserve the issue for review by asserting the appropriate and specific objection below. In the absence of specific pre-plea notice and subsequent appropriate objection at sentencing, the lower court “was under ho statutory compulsion to consider or make necessary findings as to whether [the defendant] qualified as a violent career criminal ... and was free to simply impose a valid guidelines sentence.... ” See State v. Alexander, 731 So. 2d 82, 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Washington v. State, 895 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…notified that a prison releasee reoffender enhancement was being sought by the State. However, this notification was accomplished by a separate notice of intent. Washington cites a Third District case in support of his contention. In State v. Bell, 747 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), the State filed a general notice of intent to seek an enhanced sentence under section 775.084. Id. at 1029. Following a plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Bell as a habitual felony offender, and the State objected that he…
-
Sampson v. State, 798 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…“is deemed denied and any order rendered more than 60 days from the filing of the motion is a nullity”). As such, the defendant may raise the alleged sentencing errors on direct appeal. First, the defendant contends that pursuant to State v. Bell, 747 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), he must be resen-tenced under the guidelines because the State’s general notice of intent to seek enhancement was deficient. We disagree. In Bell, prior to the defendant entering a plea of guilty, the State filed its notice of i…
-
Forcelledo v. State, 898 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…ng an enhanced sentence. .The State is allowed to give notice under as many classifications as it chooses, where the State is prepared to show that the defendant meets the statutory criteria. The defendant claims that the decision in State v. Bell, 747 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), invalidates this notice. That is not so. In Bell there was no specification of any specific statutory classification. In the present case the notice identified the specific statutory classifications the State intended to rely on.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Alexander, 731 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)