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 granted the State's petition for review and quashed the Second District Court of Appeal's decision in Walker v. State, which had reversed a habitual offender sentence on the ground that the State could not present new evidence on remand. The Court held that consistent with its decision in Collins v. State, the State may present new evidence on remand to prove the defendant meets habitual offender criteria.
The State may present new evidence on remand to attempt to prove that the defendant meets the criteria for habitual offender sentencing when a habitual offender sentence is reversed because of insufficient evidence.
[1] When a habitual offender sentence is reversed due to insufficient evidence, the State may present new evidence to prove the defendant meets the criteria for habitual offe…
[2] A prior appellate decision holding that a defendant must be sentenced within guidelines upon remand, after objecting to the sufficiency of habitual offender evidence at t…
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.”
States the controlling legal standard established in Collins v. State regarding what the State may do on remand after a habitual offender sentence is reversed for insufficient evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalker received a habitual offender sentence. On appeal, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed the sentence because the State did not present s…
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 Habitual Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Walker v. State, 964 So. 2d 886 (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 the State should not be afforded a second opportunity on remand to demonstrate that the defendant meets the habitual offender criteria. 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 evidence on that issue. See Walker, 964 So. 2d at 886-87. 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 “[t]his Court’s decision in Collins is controlling,” and that, as such, “the decision of the district court [in Walker ] is without support.”
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
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, 964 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)