DONALD EUGENE WRIGHT, 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.
Donald Eugene Wright challenged the constitutionality of Florida's habitual felony offender statute, arguing that Apprendi v. New Jersey requires judicial findings regarding prior convictions to be submitted to a jury. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion, holding that recidivism findings are exempt from Apprendi's jury requirement.
The court affirmed that the habitual felony offender statute is constitutional and does not violate Apprendi because recidivism is a traditional, exception basis for sentence enhancement that does not require jury findings, and Apprendi does not overrule Florida's precedent that habitual offender determinations are independent of guilt in the underlying offense.
[1] The habitual felony offender statute is constitutional even if a judge, rather than a jury, makes factual findings regarding prior convictions and eligibility for enhance…
[2] Recidivism is a traditional basis for increasing a defendant's sentence and is a fact that does not relate to the commission of the offense currently before the court.
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“The United States Supreme Court expressly acknowledged in Apprendi that recidivism is a traditional basis for increasing a sentence and is a fact which does not relate to the commission of the offense before the court.”
Establishes that Apprendi does not eliminate the recidivism exception to jury trial requirements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWright was sentenced as a habitual felony offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes. The trial judge made findings of fact regarding the existe…
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 Recidivism cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
Donald Eugene Wright appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion in which he claimed that the habitual felony offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1993), is unconstitutional because it alloVs a defendant’s punishment to be increased based on findings of fact made by a judge, rather than by. a jury. We affirm.
Defendant relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), in which the United States Supreme Court held that other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact which increases a defendant’s punishment must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant argues that under the habitual felony offender statute, the trial judge must not only make a finding of fact that a prior conviction exists, but also must find that the conviction was for a qualified offense committed within five years, was not for a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1993), and had not been vacated, or the. defendant pardoned. Therefore, he concludes that under Apprendi, the statute is unconstitutional.
The United States Supreme Court expressly acknowledged in Apprendi that recidivism is a traditional basis for increasing a sentence and is a fact which does not relate to the commission of the offense before the court. See also State v. Rucker, 613 So. 2d 460 (Fla.1993) (legislature enacted habitual felony offender statute to allow enhanced penalties for defendants who meet objective requirements indicating recidivism). Nothing in Apprendi overrules the Florida Supreme Court’s holding in Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1980) that the determination that a defendant could be sentenced as an habitual felony offender was independent of the question of guilt in the underlying substantive offense and did not require the full panoply of rights afforded a defendant in the trial of the offense.
This court has previously affirmed orders denying the same claim. See Harris v. State, 775 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Coleman v. State, 773 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, W. and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (32 total)
-
Benny Jones v. State, 791 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…nt of a penalty based on proof of prior criminal convictions, and therefore we affirm the denial of the appellant’s motion. See Saldo v. State, 789 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Gordon v. State, 787 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Wright v. State, 780 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); see also McDowell v. State, 789 So. 2d 956 (Fla.2001). AFFIRMED. BARFIELD, WOLF and LEWIS, JJ., CONCUR.…
-
Saldo v. State, 789 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…r convictions”, do not require those facts to be submitted to the jury and are outside the scope of the ruling in Apprendi. See United States v. Powell, 109 F. Supp. 2d 381 (E.D.Pa.2000). Subsequent to Apprendi, our sister courts in Wright v. State, 780 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)(concluding that nothing in Apprendi overrules the Florida Supreme Court’s holding in Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1980), that the determination that a defendant could be sentenced as an habitual felony offender was indepe…
-
Sampson v. State, 832 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Ap-prendi allows for habitualized sentences which are enhanced on the basis of a defendant’s prior criminal record under statutes similar to section 775.084. See also Wright v. State, 780 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Third, Sampson argues his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present exculpatory evidence in the form of a taped statement from co-defendant, Nap-po. In the statement Nappo allegedly admitted he committed the offense…
Previewing 3 of 32 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Fredford James Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Rucker, 613 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1993)