DAN ALLEN FRY, 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 court held that a generalized reference to a defendant's record in a PSI is insufficient to justify an enhanced sentence under Section 775.084.
Appellant was given an enhanced sentence as an habitual felony offender based on his prior record as presented in the PSI. The trial court made only a…
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 Presentence Investigation Report cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM..
Appellant pled guilty and was given an enhanced sentence as an habitual felony offender under Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1977). As the basis for the enhanced sentence, the court made only a generalized reference to appellant’s bad record which was apparently set forth in the PSI.
Admittedly, Section 775.084(3)(c) does not require the contents of the PSI to be proved through testimony in the traditional way. Nevertheless, Section 775.084(3)(d) envisions that the court set forth findings which are the basis for the imposition of the enhanced sentence in order that the sentence may be the subject of appellate review. In this case the court failed to specify the evidence upon which it relied to justify the enhanced sentence. See Grimmett v. State, 357 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA, filed April 12, 1978).
The judgment is affirmed but the sentence is hereby vacated. The case is remanded for the imposition of a new sentence.
GRIMES, Acting C. J., and OTT and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ulysses Adams, Jr. v. State, 376 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…no objection to the sentencing court’s exclusive reliance on a “rap sheet”; and King v. State, 369 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), similarly following Chukes and requiring “proof to show” a basis for the second-stage finding. But cf. Fry v. State, 359 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), briefly holding that Section 775.084(3)(c) “does not require the contents of the PSI to be proved through testimony in the traditional way,” but reversing for the court’s failure to “specify the evidence” justifying the extended…
-
Johnson v. State, 371 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…d). The statutory scheme is similar to that mandated for sentencing a defendant as an habitual offender under Section 775.084, Florida Statutes, in that it requires specific justification and reasons for imposition of the sentence. See Fry v. State, 359 So. 2d 584 (Fla.2d DCA 1978) (evidence to justify enhanced sentence must be specified); McClain v. State, 356 So. 2d 1256 (Fla.2d DCA 1978) (record must support trial court’s conclusion that enhanced sentence is necessary). Finally, it should be emphasized th…
-
Whaley v. State, 382 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…uch a finding is required. § 775.084(3) and (3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1979); Levy v. State, 375 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Grimmett v. State, 357 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). See Adams v. State, 376 So. 2d 47, 58-59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Fry v. State, 359 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). The sentence is therefore vacated and the cause remanded for appropriate findings and imposition of sentence accordingly. McCORD, LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Grimmett v. State, 357 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)