KHALIL MAXIMILIAN WASHINGTON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 4th DCA | 2021-01-20
No. 19-2794
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2021) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.

Holding

A trial court does not violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights by departing from the statutory maximum sentence when section 775.084, Florida Statutes, authorizes an enhanced sentence based on the defendant's prior felony convictions.

Headnotes

[1] A trial court may impose a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum based on a defendant's prior felony convictions under section 775.084, Florida Statutes, without viola…

Previewing 1 of 1 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
Key Quotes

“the trial court did not violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights in departing from the statutory maximum sentence, because section 775.084, Florida Statutes, authorized the court to impose an enhanced sentence on the basis of the defendant's prior felony convictions, and not based on findings of fact”

Cited rationale from Armstrong v. State explaining the constitutional permissibility of enhanced sentences based on prior convictions
Facts & Procedural History

Khalil Maximilian Washington was convicted and sentenced by the trial court in Broward County. The trial court imposed an enhanced sentence exceeding …

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.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See St. Louis v. State, 985 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Armstrong v. State, No. 1D20-498, 2020 WL 6126973, at *1 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 19, 2020) (explaining that the trial court did not violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights in departing from the statutory maximum sentence, because section 775.084, Florida Statutes, authorized the court to impose an enhanced sentence on the basis of the defendant’s prior felony convictions, and not based on findings of fact). WARNER, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Khalil Maximilian Washington v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See St. Louis v. State, 985 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Armstrong v. State, No. 1D20-498, 2020 WL 6126973, at *1 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 19, 2020) (explaining that the trial court did not violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights in departing from the statutory maximum sentence, because section 775.084, Florida Statutes, authorized the court to impose an…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw