DaCosta v. State
| Decision Date | 08 December 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 82775,82775 |
| Citation | 647 So.2d 818 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly S645 Mark DaCOSTA, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Gary Caldwell, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Joan Fowler, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen. and Sarah B. Mayer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.
We have for review DaCosta v. State, 625 So.2d 1317 (Fla.4th DCA 1993), in which the district court certified the same question it certified in Herrington v. State:
WHETHER A TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO MAKE THE REQUISITE STATUTORY FINDINGS UNDER SECTION 775.084(1)(a)1 AND 2 IS SUBJECT TO THE SAME HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS CONTAINED IN STATE V. RUCKER, 613 So.2d 460 (Fla.1993) WHERE THE EVIDENCE OF THE PRIOR CONVICTIONS WHICH QUALIFY A DEFENDANT AS AN HABITUAL OFFENDER IS UNREBUTTED.
Herrington, 622 So.2d 1339, 1341 (Fla.4th DCA 1993), approved, 643 So.2d 1078 (Fla.1994). We have jurisdiction based on article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.
We recently answered this certified question in the affirmative in Herrington v. State, 643 So.2d 1078 (Fla.1994). We held that because ascertaining whether a criminal defendant has prior felony convictions is a ministerial determination, it is harmless error when a trial court fails to make findings of fact under sections 775.084(1)(a)1. and 2. 1 where the evidence of the prior convictions is unrebutted.
As in Herrington, the evidence of DaCosta's prior convictions, which were used to sentence him as an habitual offender on Count I, was unrebutted. At sentencing, DaCosta acknowledged serving prison time, and his attorney stipulated that DaCosta qualified to be sentenced as an habitual offender. The trial court did not, however, make findings of fact as required by section 775.084(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1991).
As we stated in Herrington, whether a criminal defendant has prior convictions is a ministerial determination that involves no subjective analysis. A ministerial determination is easily discernible from the record and thus allows for meaningful appellate review.
We emphasize, as we did in Herrington, that while the trial court's failure to make findings in this case is harmless error, it is error nonetheless and could require reversal in cases where there are questions about prior convictions.
Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the affirmative. We approve the decision of the district court affirming DaCosta's sentence as an habitual offender for Count I.
It is so ordered.
1 Section 775.084(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), provides in relevant part:
(a) "Habitual felony offender" means a defendant for whom ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitehead v. State, 94-1955
...643 So.2d 1078 (Fla.1994), aff'g, 622 So.2d 1339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); see also Arnold v. State, 645 So.2d 418 (Fla.1994); DaCosta v. State, 647 So.2d 818 (Fla.1994); State v. Rucker, 613 So.2d 460 (Fla.1993); Tarver v. State, 617 So.2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 629 So.2d 135 Accord......
-
Watson v. State, 95-2793
...specific requirement that the court orally dictate such findings into the record or reduce them to writing. However, in DaCosta v. State, 647 So.2d 818, 819 (Fla.1994), in response to a certified question as to whether the harmless error rule could apply in this situation, the supreme court......
-
The Florida Bar v. Webster, 82042
... ... This disciplinary action arose as a result of Webster's failure to disclose disciplinary action taken against him in this state to other jurisdictions where he either already was a member of the bar or where he was applying for admission to the bar. As a result of the alleged ... ...
-
Evans v. State, 97-3203
...as an habitual offender renders any failure by the trial court to make a formal finding on this issue harmless error. DaCosta v. State, 647 So.2d 818 (Fla.1994). HARRIS and ANTOON, JJ., concur. ...