NICHOLAS JOSEPH MOLFETTO, JR., 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.
Molfetto appeals a 30-year sentence imposed as a habitual felony offender for escape, following this court's earlier reversal of his violent career criminal sentence. The court affirms, holding that the trial court on remand properly imposed a habitual felony offender sentence under section 775.084(4)(a) as an alternative enhancement, despite language in the prior opinion that could have been clearer.
The court affirms the habitual felony offender sentence, holding that violent career criminal sentencing is only one of several possible enhancements under section 775.084, and the trial court properly imposed an alternative habitual felony offender enhancement on remand.
[1] A trial court may resentence a defendant as a habitual felony offender even if a prior appellate decision remanded for a determination of eligibility for a violent career…
[2] An appellate court's prior opinion remanding a case for resentencing does not preclude the trial court from imposing a different lawful sentencing enhancement if the defe…
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“In this case, violent career criminal sentencing is only one of several possible enhancements under section 775.084. On remand, the trial court determined that Mr. Molfetto did not qualify for an enhanced sentence as a violent career criminal but that he did qualify for an enhanced sentence as a habitual offender.”
Establishes that the trial court had discretion to impose alternative sentencing enhancements even if the violent career criminal designation did not apply.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 2001, Molfetto was convicted of felony fleeing to elude, felony petit theft, obstructing or opposing an officer without violence, and escape from p…
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 Violent Career Criminal Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Nicholas Joseph Molfetto, Jr., appeals his sentence of thirty years’ imprisonment as a habitual felony offender for the offense of escape, entered after this court reversed an earlier sentence for this offense.
We affirm. In 2001, Mr. Molfetto was convicted of felony fleeing to elude, felony petit theft, obstructing or opposing an officer without violence, and escape from police custody. Originally, he was sentenced on the escape conviction to forty years’ imprisonment as a violent career criminal pursuant to section 775.084(4)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp.1998). Thereafter, Mr. Molfetto filed a motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
The trial court denied the motion.
On appeal, this court affirmed except for one issue.
We reversed and remanded for a determination of whether the record established the existence of an offense in New York that was essential for sentencing in Florida as a violent career criminal. Molfetto v. State, 874 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). At the conclusion of that opinion, we stated: “If Molfetto does not have the necessary prior convictions, he is entitled to be resentenced according to the sentencing guidelines; otherwise, the trial court should attach copies of his prior convictions or other portions of the record that conclusively show Molfetto was qualified to' be sentenced as a VCC.” Id. at 669.
On remand, the trial court resentenced Mr. Molfetto as a habitual felony offender and imposed a sentence of thirty years’ imprisonment pursuant to section 775.084(4)(a).
Mr. Molfetto contends that the trial court could not impose a habitual felony offender sentence in this case and was compelled to impose a sentence according to the guidelines because of the above-quoted language from this court’s prior opinion. Although our prior opinion could have been more precise, we disagree with Mr. Molfetto’s argument. In this case, violent career criminal sentencing is only one of several possible enhancements under section 775.084. On remand, the trial court determined that Mr. Molfetto did not qualify for an enhanced sentence as a violent career criminal but that he did qualify for an enhanced sentence as a habitual offender. We did not intend by the language in our prior opinion to prevent that option and would have had no legal basis for that restriction if we had attempted to impose it for a proceeding pursuant to rule 3.800(a).
Accordingly, we affirm the habitual felony offender sentence in this case because it is a lawful and appropriate sentence.
Affirmed.
SALCINES and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cribbs v. State, 32 So. 3d 88 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…dingly, we reverse the dismissal of this claim. See Molfetto v. State, 874 So. 2d 668, 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). We remand for resentencing in which any legal sentence may be imposed. See State v. Collins, 985 So. 2d 985 (Fla.2008); Molfetto v. State, 942 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. KELLY and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Molfetto v. State, 874 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)