DAVID R. CRUZ BERTANCES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Florida appellate court reversed denial of post-conviction relief and vacated habitual offender sentence because defendant did not receive required written notice of State's intent to impose habitual offender designation under section 775.084(3)(a).
A defendant is entitled to post-conviction relief vacating a habitual offender sentence when the State fails to provide the statutorily required written notice of intent to habitualize.
[1] Written notice of the State's intent to impose a habitual offender designation is a statutory requirement under section 775.084(3)(a), and failure to provide such notice…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 purpose of requiring a prior written notice is to advise of the State's intent and give the defendant and the defendant's attorney an opportunity to prepare for the hearing”
Explaining the statutory purpose of written notice requirement under section 775.084(3)(a)
David R. Cruz Bertances was sentenced as a habitual offender without receiving written notice of the State's intention to impose such a designation as…
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 Written Notice Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, David R. Cruz Ber-tances, appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Among the issues raised, the defendant argues that his trial counsel failed to properly advise him of the ramifications of his plea, and he claims that the lack of written notice of the State’s intentions to impose an habitual offender designation, as required by section 775.084(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2000), entitles him to the relief sought. As to the first point, a review of the transcript clearly refutes the defendant’s claim that he was not fully advised of the ramifications of his plea. As to the latter claim, on the authority of Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1993), and section 775.084(3)(a), the order denying relief is reversed. The defendant did not receive the required written notice of intent to habitualize.
Moreover, while such a claim is subject to a harmless error analysis, see Massey v. State, 609 So. 2d 598 (Fla.l992)(observing the purpose of requiring a prior written notice is to advise of the State’s intent and give the defendant and the defendant’s attorney an opportunity to prepare for the hearing), unlike Massey, the fact pattern sub judice does not demonstrate the defendant’s actual knowledge prior to hearing of the intention to habitualize, nor is a harmless error argument advanced by the State.
Accordingly, the defendant’s habitual offender sentence is vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1993)
- Massey v. State, 609 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1992)