JAMES FORD, 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.
James Ford appealed his convictions for lewd/lascivious acts and indecent exposure, and challenged his sentence as a habitual felony offender (HFO). The court rejected Ford's substantive conviction arguments but reversed the HFO sentence because the record was unclear whether his predicate convictions resulted from separate sentencing proceedings, as required by statute.
Ford cannot be sentenced as an HFO based on the current record because it is unclear whether his predicate convictions resulted from separate sentencing proceedings as required by statute, even though the underlying adjudications occurred on different dates.
[1] A prior felony conviction cannot be counted for habitual felony offender sentencing unless it was sentenced separately from any other felony conviction to be counted as a…
[2] Multiple felony convictions imposed on the same day can satisfy the sequential conviction requirement for habitual felony offender sentencing only if they result from sep…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“In order to be counted as a prior felony for purposes of sentencing under this section, the felony must have resulted in a conviction sentenced separately prior to the current offense and sentenced separately from any other felony conviction that is to be counted as a prior felony.”
States the statutory requirement from section 775.084(5) that predicate convictions must be sentenced separately to qualify for HFO enhancement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFord was convicted of multiple counts involving lewd or lascivious acts and indecent exposure. His HFO sentence was based on prior convictions for str…
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 Sequential Conviction Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, J.
We reject all issues raised by Ford in connection with his conviction on multiple counts involving lewd or lascivious acts and indecent exposure. Thus we turn our attention to his contention that he could not be deemed a habitual felony offender (HFO) because the predicate convictions were all imposed on the same day.
Section 775.084(5) provides:
“In order to be counted as a prior felony for purposes of sentencing under this section, the felony must have resulted in a conviction sentenced separately prior to the current offense and sentenced separately from any other felony conviction that is to be counted as a prior felony.”
Hence it was necessary for the state to show that the multiple convictions used to sentence defendant as a HFO were truly sequential convictions. In Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246 (Fla.2001), the court held that the sequential conviction requirement in section 775.084(5) cannot be met by multiple convictions imposed on the same day unless they result from separate sentencing-proceedings.
In this case the. record reflects that Ford was previously convicted of robbery, robbery with a fire arm, and second degree murder but that there were two different dates of adjudication. The certified copies of the convictions showed that the strong arm robbery conviction was May 1989 and that the second degree murder and robbery convictions occurred February 1990. The record also reflects that Ford was already on probation for strong arm robbery when he was sentenced for the second degree murder and robbery convictions. It further shows that he was also sentenced for strong arm robbery on the same day that he was sentenced on the second degree murder and robbery convictions. We are unable to discern from this record whether all the predicate convictions are truly sequential as resulting from separate sentencing proceedings.
We therefore reverse the HFO sentence and remand for resentencing in order to allow the court to determine whether Ford was previously convicted for sequential and separate offenses even though sentencing appears to have been done on the same day. We affirm on all other issues relating to his new convictions and the sentences imposed.
HAZOURI, J. and DELL, JOHN W., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Erick Richardson v. State, 884 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…of denial does not demonstrate that the sentences for the predicate offenses were entered in separate proceedings. Accordingly, the order summarily denying this claim is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. See Ford v. State, 814 So. 2d 1121, 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(holding remand for resen-tencing was required on ground that appellate court could not discern from the record whether predicate convictions were truly sequential as resulting from separate sentencing proceedings). On rema…1 / 2
-
Cook v. State, 893 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…a prior felony.” Although the state adduced evidence that defendant had nine previous convictions, it failed to show that they complied with section 775.084(5). In this instance the convictions were entered on two separate dates. See Ford v. State, 814 So. 2d 1121, 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (holding three previous convictions insufficient because “there were two different dates of adjudication”); Warner v. State, 798 So. 2d 885, 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (10 prior convictions “entered on the same date in the sam…
Authorities Cited
- Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2001)