JAMES DONTAVIUS ALEXANDER, 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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's sentencing of the defendant as a habitual felony offender to prison, rejecting his argument that he was entitled to a nonstate prison sanction under Florida's Criminal Punishment Code. The court held that the habitual offender statute mandatorily applies when its criteria are met, and such sentences are not subject to the Criminal Punishment Code.
A habitual felony offender sentence mandatorily applies when the statutory criteria are met, and such sentences are not subject to the Criminal Punishment Code. Therefore, the mandatory habitual offender statute controls over section 775.082(10), requiring imprisonment rather than a nonstate prison sanction.
[1] A habitual felony offender sentence is not subject to the Criminal Punishment Code.
[2] When a defendant meets the criteria for habitual offender sentencing, the court must impose such a sentence.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“a sentence imposed under the habitual offender statute is not subject to the Criminal Punishment Code”
Establishes that the Criminal Punishment Code does not apply to habitual offender sentences, making section 775.082(10) inapplicable
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlexander was convicted of driving while license suspended, a third-degree felony committed on May 3, 2010. He scored 15.4 points under the Criminal 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 Nonstate Prison Sanction cases and more on FLexlaw
The issue presented in this case is whether a defendant is required to be sentenced to a nonstate prison sanction under section 775.082(10), Florida Statutes (2010), where he also meets the requirements for sentencing as a habitual felony offender. We find that the trial court correctly sentenced appellant as a habitual offender to four years in prison, as the Criminal Punishment Code does not apply in this case.
Section 775.082(10) provides, in pertinent part:
If a defendant is sentenced for an offense committed on or after July 1, 2009, which is a third degree felony but not a forcible felony as defined in s. 776.08, and excluding any third degree felony violation under chapter 810, and if the total sentence points pursuant to s. 921.0024 are 22 points or fewer, the court must sentence the offender to a nonstate prison sanction.
Appellant met the requirements of this statute, as he committed the offense of driving while license suspended on May 3, 2010, the offense is a third-degree felony, and appellant scored 15.4 points.
However, during the sentencing hearing, appellant conceded that he also met the requirements for habitual offender designation. Section 775.084(3)(a)6. of the habitual offender statute states:
For an offense committed on or after October 1, 1995, if the state attorney pursues a habitual felony offender sanction or a habitual violent felony offender sanction against the defendant and the court, in a separate proceeding pursuant to this paragraph, determines that the defendant meets the criteria under subsection (1) for imposing such sanction, the court must sentence the defendant as a habitual felony offender or a habitual violent felony offender, subject to imprisonment pursuant to this section....
This statute, by its terms, requires that the trial court impose a habitual offender sentence where, as here, the *419criteria of the statute are otherwise met. Moreover, a sentence imposed under the habitual offender statute is not subject to the Criminal Punishment Code. See 775.084(4)(h), Fla. Stat.; State v. Collins, 985 So.2d 985, 991 (Fla.2008). Section 775.082(10) refers to the Criminal Punishment Code in designating the total sentence points allowed under section 921.0024. Because the trial court sentenced appellant as a habitual offender, the Criminal Punishment Code is inapplicable. As the trial court noted, the legislature was aware of the habitual offender statute when it enacted section 775.082(10). If the legislature intended for section 775.082(10) to apply in lieu of the habitual offender statute, it would have explicitly stated so.
Affirmed.
POLEN, HAZOURI and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rankin v. State, 174 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…y where the scoresheet would actually apply. “Habitual offender sentencing is ... separate from both the sentencing guidelines and sentencing under the Criminal Punishment Code.” State v. Collins, 985 So. 2d 985, 991 (Fla.2008); Alexander v. State, 88 So. 3d 417, 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“Because the trial court sentenced appellant as an habitual offender, the Criminal Punishment Code is inapplicable.”). Such separation is largely a relic from the time guidelines severely restricted a trial court’s sentenci…
-
Floyd v. State, 104 So. 3d 1282 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Alexander v. State, 88 So. 3d 417, 418-19 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (holding section 775.084(3)(a)6., Florida Statutes, requires that the trial court impose a habitual offender sentence where the criteria of the statute are otherwise met, even if the defendant’s offense falls within secti…
-
Clark Cummings v. State, 230 So. 3d 1282 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See § 775.084(4)(h), Fla. Stat. (2015); Alexander v. State, 88 So. 3d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); King v. State, 557 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). PALMER, WALLIS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Despart v. State, 884 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- State v. Ransom Louis Collins, 985 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 2008)