RONALD TILLMAN, 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.
Ronald Tillman appealed his jury convictions for escape, battery of a law enforcement officer, and false imprisonment, along with his habitual offender sentence. The court affirmed all convictions and rejected Tillman's argument that Blakely v. Washington required jury determination of facts underlying the habitual offender sentence.
Blakely does not require jury determination of facts underlying a habitual offender sentence. The exception to Apprendi for prior convictions applies to habitual offender sentencing determinations, and judges may determine prior felony convictions without jury participation.
[1] A prior conviction is an exception to the rule that any fact increasing a criminal penalty beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury.
[2] The Blakely v. …
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“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 core Apprendi/Blakely rule that the court applies, with the crucial exception for prior convictions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTillman was convicted by jury of escape, battery of a law enforcement officer, and false imprisonment. The trial court imposed a habitual offender sen…
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 Blakely V. Washington cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
A jury convicted Ronald Tillman of escape, battery of a law enforcement officer, and false imprisonment. Among the punishments imposed by the trial court was a habitual offender sentence for the escape conviction. On appeal, Tillman challenges his convictions and his habitual offender sentence. We affirm the convictions without discussion. We also disagree with Tillman’s contention that his habitual offender sentence should be reversed because it violates Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and we affirm that sentence as well.
Tillman asserts Blakely entitled him to a jury determination of facts that were legally essential to his habitual offender sentence, including whether (1) he had been convicted of a prior felony; (2) the charged offense occurred within five years of his prior felony conviction or his release from imprisonment imposed for that conviction; and (3) he had been pardoned. Blakely reiterated the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that “[o]ther 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.” Blakely, — U.S. at -, 124 S.Ct. at 2536 (emphasis supplied).
The Blakely Court applied Ap-prendi to sentencing guidelines schemes that allowed judges to impose upward departure sentences based on facts and cir cumstances surrounding the charged crimes. Id. at 2527-38. But that is not the circumstance here. Tillman was legally sentenced as a habitual offender, not under the guidelines. See Matthews v. State, 891 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).
Nothing in Blakely casts doubt on the numerous Florida decisions holding that Apprendi does not apply to a determination that a defendant has previous felony convictions that qualify him for a habitual offender sentence. See Grant v. State, 815 So. 2d 667, 668 n. 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); see also Fyler v. State, 852 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), review denied, 860 So. 2d 977 (Fla.2003); Jones v. State, 791 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Saldo v. State, 789 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Gordon v. State, 787 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
Thus, we join our sister courts in determining that Blakely, also, does not require that a jury make factual determinations concerning a defendant’s qualification for habitual offender sentencing. See Matthews, 891 So. 2d at 596; Frumenti v. State, 885 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); McBride v. State, 884 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
Affirmed.
SILBERMAN and VILLANTI, JJ„ Concur. ' 1
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Calloway v. State, 914 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…di1 [*14] It is clear that sentence enhancements under the various provisions of the habitual offender statute meet the requirements of Apprendi and Blakely because the 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…
-
Luton v. State, 934 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…tion: the date of the prior conviction, the sentence punishment 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…
-
Enoch Eugene Dinkens v. State, 976 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…doubt. However, as the defendant concedes on appeal, this argument has been repeatedly rejected by Florida courts. See Gudinas v. State, 879 So. 2d 616, 618-19 (Fla.2004); Roberts v. State, 923 So. 2d 578, 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Tillman v. State, 900 So. 2d 633, 633-34 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Frumenti v. State, 885 So. 2d 924, 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); McBride v. State, 884 So. 2d 476, 477-78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Saunders v. State, 863 So. 2d 458, 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Graham v. State, 822 So. 2d 576, 578-79…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004)
- McBRIDE v. State, 884 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Benny Jones v. State, 791 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Walker v. State, 791 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Saldo v. State, 789 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Gordon v. State, 787 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Frumenti v. State, 885 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Grant v. State, 815 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Fyler v. State, 852 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)