STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ALEXANDER WALKER, JR., RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Second District Court of Appeal's decision in Walker that had invalidated a habitual offender sentence for insufficient evidence, holding that upon remand for resentencing, the State may present new evidence to prove habitual offender status.
When a habitual offender sentence is reversed because of insufficient evidence, on remand for resentencing the State may again attempt to prove that the defendant meets the criteria for such sentencing.
[1] When a habitual offender sentence is reversed due to insufficient evidence, the State may present new evidence on remand to prove the defendant meets the habitual offende…
[2] A district court's decision that conflicts with a controlling supreme court precedent must be quashed.
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“when a habitual offender sentence is reversed because of insufficient evidence, on remand for resentencing the State may again attempt to prove that the defendant meets the criteria for such sentencing.”
Establishes the Court's primary holding that the State may present new evidence on remand.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalker was convicted and sentenced as a habitual offender. At sentencing, Walker objected to the sufficiency of the State's evidence regarding qualify…
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 Certified Conflict cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Walker v. State, 988 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), in which the Second District Court of Appeal reversed a habitual offender sentence because the State did not present sufficient proof of the qualifying prior convictions. In remanding for resentencing under the Criminal Punishment Code, the Second District Court in Walker cited as authority its prior decision in Collins v. State, 893 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), quashed in part, 985 So. 2d 985 (Fla.2008), in holding that, because the defendant objected to the sufficiency of the evidence at the original sentencing hearing, on remand he must be sentenced within the guidelines. As it had done in Collins, the Second District Court in Walker certified conflict with decisions of the First, Fourth and Fifth District Courts of Appeal as to whether upon remand for resentencing the State may present new habitual offender evidence. See Walker, 988 So. 2d 6, 33 Fla. L. Weekly at D44. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We stayed proceedings in this case pending disposition of Collins. We have since decided Collins, in which we held that “when a habitual offender sentence is reversed because of insufficient evidence, on remand for resentencing the State may again attempt to prove that the defendant meets the criteria for such sentencing.” State v. Collins, 985 So. 2d 985, 994 (Fla.2008). In so holding, this Court quashed the Second District Court’s underlying Collins decision on this issue and approved the certified conflict cases from the First, Fourth and Fifth District Courts. See id.
We thus issued an order directing Respondent in the present case to show cause why we should not exercise jurisdiction, quash the Second District Court’s Walker decision, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Collins. Respondent has filed a response conceding that he is unable to show such cause.
We accordingly grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed and this matter is remanded to the Second District Court for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Collins.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and BELL, JJ., and CANTERO, Senior Justice, concur. QUINCE, C.J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Isaiah L. Spencer & Shatika L. Spencer v. Ditech Fin., 242 So. 3d 1189 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…on of ours that so holds. But see Walker v. State, 988 So. 2d 6, 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (Altenbernd, J., concurring) (stating in a concurring opinion that this has been a general practice in civil cases), quashed on other grounds by State v. Walker, 992 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 2008). As the cases cited in the text demonstrate, there are circumstances in which our court and others have declined to afford a new trial where a foreclosure plaintiff's only evidence on a point was inadmissible, leaving the balance of the…
-
Forman v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…is a 'de novo' proceeding, at which either side may present evidence anew regarding the appropriate sentence." Walker v. State, 988 So. 2d 6, 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (Altenbernd, J., concurring specially), quashed on other grounds by State v. Walker, 992 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 2008); see also Heatley v. State, 279 So. 3d 850, 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) ("Where the court has discretion to impose a new sentence and is not merely performing a ministerial act, a defendant is entitled to a full de novo resentencing hearing."…
Authorities Cited
- Despart v. State, 884 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- State v. Ransom Louis Collins, 985 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 2008)
- Ransom Louis Collins v. State, 893 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Walker v. State, 988 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)