DAVID ANDERSON, 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.
Anderson appealed his sentence as a habitual offender and prison releasee reoffender, challenging the adequacy of notice and the constitutionality of the sentencing statutes. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the state's notice was adequate and that prior precedent had rejected similar constitutional challenges.
The notice was adequate because it informed Anderson almost a full year before trial that the state would seek habitual offender designation and specified the criteria (prior felony convictions and commission within five years of release). Constitutional challenges to the habitual offender and Prison Releasee Reoffender statutes are without merit based on established precedent.
[1] A "shotgun" notice of intent to seek habitual offender status is valid.
[2] A notice of intent to seek habitual offender status is adequate if it puts the defendant on guard as to the potential sentencing consequences.
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“This court has recently determined, on rehearing, that this type of "shotgun" notice is valid.”
Establishes that listing multiple potential enhancements in a single notice satisfies adequate notice requirements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnderson was convicted of escape, battery on a law enforcement officer, resisting arrest with violence, and petit theft. The state filed a notice of i…
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 Apprendi V. New Jersey cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Anderson, sentenced as a habitual offender and a prison releasee reoffender, claims that he had inadequate notice of the state’s intent to seek a habitual offender sentence. He also asserts the unconstitutionality of the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act and the habitual offender statute. We affirm.
Anderson was convicted of escape, battery on a law enforcement officer, resisting arrest with violence, and petit theft. Shortly after charges were filed, the state filed a notice of intent, pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes, seeking to declare Anderson a habitual offender. The notice advised him that the state was seeking designation as a habitual felony offender, a habitual violent felony offender, a three-time violent felony offender, and/or a violent career criminal. Anderson claims the notice of intent was too general.
This court has recently determined, on rehearing, that this type of “shotgun” notice is valid. Washington v. State, 895 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
Anderson was notified almost a full year before trial that the state would be seeking to declare him a habitual offender. The language of the notice sent by the state put Anderson on guard as to the potential sentencing against him. Specifically, the notice indicated it was supported by the previous convictions of the defendant “of any combination of two (2) or more felonies ..., and the sentence for which the defendant is to be sentenced was committed within five years of the date of the conviction of the defendant’s last conviction .... ” He knew he had been released from prison less than one year before he engaged in the new crimes charged against him. He also knew the nature of the pending charges. Accordingly, the notice was adequate.
As to the constitutional issues raised, relying on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), similar arguments have already been rejected. See McDowell v. State, 789 So. 2d 956 (Fla.2001); Sheffield v. State, 794 So. 2d 592 (Fla.2001); Parker v. State, 790 So. 2d 1033 (Fla.2001); Dennis v. State, 784 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Gordon v. State, 787 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Kijewski v. State, 773 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Fyler v. State, 852 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
Therefore, the order is affirmed.
GUNTHER, STONE and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Washington v. State, 895 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Kijewski v. State, 773 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Gordon v. State, 787 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- McDOWELL v. State, 789 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 2001)
- Fyler v. State, 852 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Slaton v. State, 784 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Hernandez v. State of Fla. & Ken Jenne, 784 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Parker v. State, 790 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 2001)
- Sheffield v. State, 794 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2001)