THOMAS MACKEY, 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.
Thomas Mackey was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender following a jury conviction for robbery with a deadly weapon. Mackey challenged the sentence claiming the State failed to provide proper notice of its intent to seek habitual offender sentencing after his case was remanded for trial. The court affirmed, holding that Mackey had sufficient notice from the original filing and any defect was harmless error.
The trial court properly sentenced Mackey as a habitual violent felony offender because Mackey had actual notice of the State's intent from the original notice filed before his plea, and this court had confirmed in its prior reversal opinion that the State could again seek to qualify Mackey as a habitual violent felony offender. Any failure to file a second notice was harmless error.
[1] A defendant must receive prior written notice of the State's intent to seek habitual offender sentencing.
[2] The purpose of the prior written notice requirement for habitual offender sentencing is to inform the defendant and their attorney of the State's intent and allow for pre…
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“In order for a defendant to be sentenced as a habitual offender, the defendant must have had prior written notice of the State's intent to seek a habitual offender sentence.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for written notice before habitual offender sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMackey was charged with robbery with a deadly weapon on August 5, 1996. The State filed notice of its intent to seek habitual violent felony offender …
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 Habitual Violent Felony Offender cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
Thomas Mackey claims that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a habitual violent felony offender because the State failed to give him proper notice. We hold that Mackey had sufficient notice of the State’s intent to seek a habitual violent felony offender sentence and affirm. Mackey raises two additional points on appeal in which we find no merit.
On August 5, 1996, Mackey was charged by information with robbery with a deadly weapon.
On September 25, 1996, the State filed its notice that it would seek habitual violent felony offender sentencing. Mackey entered a nolo contendere plea to the charge, but later moved to withdraw the plea.
The trial court denied the motion and Mackey appealed that decision.
This court reversed, holding that Mackey was entitled to withdraw his plea. Mackey v. State, 743 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Mackey then elected to proceed to trial. Following his trial in January 2003, a jury found Mackey guilty as charged.
The trial court sentenced Mackey to life in prison as a habitual violent felony offender.
In this appeal, Mackey argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a habitual violent felony offender because the State failed to file a new notice that it sought habitual offender sentencing after the case had been remanded to the trial court. He claims that under Pitts v. State, 805 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), the case returned to the pre-plea stage upon remand and the State was required to reinitiate the process of seeking habitual offender sentencing by filing a new notice.
In order for a defendant to be sentenced as a habitual offender, the defendant must have had prior written notice of the State’s intent to seek a habitual offender sentence. § 775.084(3)(a)(2), Fla. Stat. (1995); Pitts v. State, 766 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). “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.” Massey v. State, 609 So. 2d 598, 600 (Fla.1992).
In this case, not only did the State provide Mackey and his attorney with written notice before he entered his plea, but this court also confirmed in its prior opinion that the State could again seek to qualify Mackey as a habitual violent felony offender. Mackey, 743 So. 2d at 1117. Mackey had actual notice that he could be sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender before his trial began; thus, any failure by the State to file a second notice was harmless error. See Massey, 609 So. 2d at 600 (holding that the State’s failure to strictly comply with the notice requirement of the habitual offender statute is subject to a harmless error analysis).
Accordingly, we affirm Mackey’s judgment and habitual violent felony offender sentence.
Affirmed.
CANADY, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Massey v. State, 609 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1992)
- Pitts v. State, 805 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Pitts v. State, 766 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Grant v. State, 743 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- MacKey v. State, 743 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)