SCOTT DANIEL PHIPPS AND RUSSELL W. BINSTEAD, APPELLANTS,
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 court held that Phipps' enhanced sentence was valid without a written order, but Binstead's grand larceny conviction lacked sufficient evidence.
Appellants were convicted of aggravated assault, attempted kidnapping, and grand larceny. Binstead's conviction relied on Phipps' confession, which wa…
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 Recidivist Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
Appellants were convicted on a joint trial of aggravated assault, attempted kidnapping, and grand larceny. Binstead questions the sufficiency of the competent evidence against him on the grand larceny charge. A key link in the circumstantial chain of evidence against Binstead was Phipps’ presence in the stolen vehicle with another, arguably Binstead. However, Phipps’ presence in that vehicle was not established by evidence admissible against Binstead, but only by Phipps’ confession. The evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of Binstead for grand larceny.
Phipps urges that his enhanced sentence as a recidivist under Section 775.-084(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1975), was not accompanied by a written order, entered in the record, to the effect that the enhanced sentence “is necessary for the protection of the public from further criminal activity by the defendant . . . .” See Chukes v. State, 334 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). We do not consider that a written order to that effect is essential. A finding announced at the sentencing hearing is sufficient to satisfy the statute. Phipps makes no assertion that the trial judge entirely omitted that finding at the hearing, and he brings no transcript here to evidence its omission.
Phipps’ convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED. Binstead’s conviction and sentence for grand larceny are VACATED, and his other convictions are AFFIRMED.
BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fredford James Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1980)…real sense, the appellate court will be put in a position of duplicating the sentencing function which is properly and exclusively that of the trial court. This case should be remanded for a new enhanced sentencing proceeding! * Phipps v. State, 352 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).…
-
Ulysses Adams, Jr. v. State, 376 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…findings required as the basis for such sentence shall be found to exist by a preponderance of the evidence and shall be appealable to the extent normally applicable to similar findings. This requirement was rigorously observed in Phipps v. State, 352 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1st [*58] DCA 1977), Fry, Grey, and King, supra. The court’s findings of fact must on their face tend to show that an extended term is necessary to protect the public from the defendant’s further criminal activity. The appellate court in disch…1 / 2
-
Grimmett v. State, 357 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…s mandated by Section 775.084(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1975); unless such a finding is made, an enhanced sentence may not be imposed under Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1975). Section 775.084(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1975); see Phipps v. State, 352 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The trial court erred when it failed to make such a finding. Appellant further complains that no evidence justifying an enhanced sentence was adduced by the state, asserting that the production of such evidence in open court is…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chukes v. State, 334 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)