FREDERICK FRUMENTI, 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.
Frumenti appeals the denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging his habitual felony offender sentence as illegal under Blakely v. Washington. The court affirms, holding that Blakely does not apply to habitual offender sentencing because such sentences are based solely on prior convictions, which are excepted from Apprendi's jury requirement.
Habitual offender sentences are not illegal under Blakely because Blakely merely applied Apprendi v. New Jersey, which excepted prior convictions from the jury requirement. Since habitual offender sentences are based solely on prior convictions, they do not trigger Blakely's jury requirement.
[1] Habitual offender sentences are based solely on prior convictions and do not require jury determination of facts that increase the penalty beyond the statutory maximum.
[2] The Supreme Court's holding in Blakely v. …
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“Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Establishes the Apprendi rule and its exception for prior convictions, which the court applies to reject Frumenti's Blakely challenge
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrumenti was sentenced for armed burglary of a dwelling, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, grand theft of a firearm, and aggravated assaul…
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 Rule 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, J.
Frederick Frumenti appeals an order summarily denying his Rule 3.800(a) motion.1 We affirm.
Frumenti was sentenced for armed burglary of a dwelling,2 possession of a firearm by a convicted felon,3 grand theft of a firearm,4 and aggravated assault with a firearm.5 He was also designated a habitual felony offender pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes. Frumenti claims in his motion that his habitual offender sentences are illegal under Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). In Blakely, the Supreme Court held that factors which enhanced a defendant’s sentence from the presumptive sentencing guidelines must be decided by a jury. Id. at 2536. We conclude that Frumenti is not entitled to relief on this claim because Blakely merely applied Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The Court ruled in Apprendi that: “Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (emphasis supplied). Contrary to Fru-mentos position, habitual offender sentences are based solely on prior convictions. See § 775.084, Fla. Stat. Further, as this court stated in Wright v. State, 780 So. 2d 216, 217 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001):
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.
AFFIRMED.
PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur. .Frumenti filed a notice of supplemental authority in the trial court, which the court treated as a Rule 3.800(a) motion since Fru-menti had nothing pending in the trial court at the time.
. § 810.02(1), Fla. Stat. . § 790.23(3), Fla. Stat. . § 812.014(2)(c)3, Fla. Stat. . § 784.02 l(l)(a), Fla. Stat.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Calloway v. State, 914 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…enhancements are based solely on prior convictions. See, e.g., Tillman v. State, 900 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Grant v. State, 815 So. 2d 667, 668 n. 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Matthews v. State, 891 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Frumenti v. State, 885 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); McBride v. State, 884 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Fyler v. State, 852 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Jones v. State, 791 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Soldo v. State, 789 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Dennis v. State, 7…
-
Carlton Tuggerson v. State, 899 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Frumenti v. State, 885 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); and McBride v. State, 884 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). SAWAYA, C.J., THOMPSON and PLEUS, JJ., concur.…
-
Luton v. State, 934 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…unishment imposed, and the date of the defendant’s end of sentence or release from supervision. The Blakely decision does not require that such findings be made by the jury. See Tillman v. State, 900 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Frumenti v. State, 885 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); see also Kepner v. State, 911 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Affirmed. . According to the information, the crime date was May 27, 2002. . The statutory findings referred to by the defendant are: 2. The felony for which the…
Previewing 3 of 17 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)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004)
- Fredford James Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1980)
- Wright v. State, 780 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)