ERNEST DALLAS, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of a motion to vacate a sentence. The court held that while a defendant has a right to counsel at sentencing, the lack of counsel does not invalidate a prior felony conviction used to enhance a subsequent sentence.
Yes, a prior felony conviction can be used to enhance a subsequent sentence even if the defendant was not represented by counsel at the sentencing for the prior conviction, as long as the prior conviction itself is valid.
“The punishment as a second offender depends on a person being convicted previously of a felony and has nothing to do with sentencing.”
Establishes the court's interpretation of the statute regarding second offender punishment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceErnest Dallas appealed an order denying his motion to vacate a sentence. He argued that he should not have been sentenced as a second offender because…
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 Right To Counsel At Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant appeals an order denying his motion to vacate filed under CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A.
The appellant argues that he should not have been sentenced as a second offender under § 775.09, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., as he was not represented by counsel at the time he was sentenced on the judgment of conviction of a felony, which conviction is the basis upon which he became punishable as a second offender under § 775.09, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
Section 775.09, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., provides :
“A person who, after having been convicted within this state of a felony * * commits any felony within this state is punishable upon conviction of such second offense as follows * * (Emphasis supplied)
The punishment as a second offender depends on a person being convicted previously of a felony and has nothing to do with sentencing. In Evans v. State, Fla. App.1964, 163 So.2d 520, an order denying relief from the sentences imposed where the defendant was not represented by counsel at the time of the imposition was reversed and remanded; however, the court went on to say on page 523:
“Of course, the fact that the appellant was not represented by counsel at the time he was sentenced in said cases does not vitiate the judgments entered therein.”
The appellant was represented by counsel and plead guilty to the first felony involved herein and the judgment of conviction in that case is valid and is a proper conviction upon which the appellant herein was validly sentenced as a second offender under § 775.09, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
For the foregoing reasons the order appealed is affirmed.
LILES and MANN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sample v. Eyman, 469 F.2d 819 (9th Cir. 1972)…d 660 (1967). The integrity of the verdict and the judgment of guilt or conviction is not thereby destroyed. Defendant’s prior conviction was constitutionally sound, cf. State v. Silva, 78 N.M. 286, 430 P. 2d 783 (1967); Dallas v. State (Fla.App.), 229 So. 2d 891 (1969); People v. Tiner, 11 Cal.App.3d 428, 89 Cal.Rptr. 834 (1970), and could be used to enhance the punishment under § 13-1650 A.R.S. IMPEACHMENT Defendant argues, that, if the conviction was infirm, it was improper for the trial court to deny h…
Authorities Cited
- Evans v. State, 163 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)