Barton v. State, 96-01195
| Decision Date | 20 February 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-01195,96-01195 |
| Citation | 706 So.2d 399 |
| Parties | Kenneth E. BARTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Tonja R. Vickers, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Kenneth E. Barton entered into a plea bargain for a sentence of twelve years' incarceration as a habitual offender to dispose of three cases encompassing charges of robbery, attempted burglary, and grand theft. The plea form he signed stated that he would receive a sentence of twelve years as a habitual offender. The trial court sentenced him in accord with the plea bargain. He now appeals, contending that he was sentenced as a habitual offender in error because the trial court did not have the benefit of a presentence investigation report prior to imposing the habitual offender sentence.
The record shows that the trial court did not have a presentence investigation report as required by section 775.0849(3)(a)1, Florida Statutes (1995), before sentencing the appellant. Based on this and on Burns v. State, 682 So.2d 675 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and Bardwell v. State, 617 So.2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), the State concedes the error. We find the State too quick to concede based on the particular facts of this case. Because the appellant bargained for a habitual offender sentence and signed the plea form which clearly contemplated a habitualized sentence, one which he does not contest he qualifies for, he effectively waived the requirement of the presentence investigation report. See Likely v. State, 583 So.2d 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (). Both Burns and Bardwell are distinguishable because there is no mention of a plea bargain showing either defendant in those cases expected to receive a habitual offender sentence.
We affirm.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...to a PSI is not required under current supreme court precedent, and it does not constitute fundamental error."); Barton v. State, 706 So.2d 399, 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) ("Because the appellant bargained for a habitual offender sentence and signed the plea form which clearly contemplated a ha......
-
Kelly v. State, 96-03761.
...consider a presentencing investigation prior to the imposition of a sentence as a habitual violent felony offender. See Barton v. State, 706 So.2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The duty to obtain and consider a presentence investigation obviously includes the obligation to consider a challenge to......
-
Carroll v. State, 5D97-3338.
...Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Barton v. State, 706 So.2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). DAUKSCH, COBB and W. SHARP, JJ., ...
-
Gilano v. State, 97-03132
...was sentenced accordingly. Under these circumstances, we conclude that appellant waived his right to a PSI. See Barton v. State, 706 So.2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Affirmed; remanded with THREADGILL and GREEN, JJ., Concur. ...
-
Tough times in the sunshine state.
...who plea bargains for an habitual offender sentence effectively waives the right to a presentence investigation. See Barton v. State, 706 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1998). Indeed, defendants are required to be personally and timely served with enhancement notices and the court is required t......