Fuller v. State, 90-2421

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Citation16 Fla. L. Weekly 1226,578 So.2d 887
Docket NumberNo. 90-2421,90-2421
PartiesMichael FULLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. 578 So.2d 887, 16 Fla. L. Week. 1226
Decision Date03 May 1991

Barbara M. Linthicum, Public Defender, Kathleen Stover, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Edward C. Hill, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ERVIN, Judge.

Appellant, Michael Fuller, challenges his sentences as a habitual felony offender under the 1989 statute. We agree with appellant that he was improperly sentenced as such and therefore reverse.

Appellant, as part of a plea agreement, agreed to plead no contest to certain criminal charges, including grand theft, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of cocaine, resisting arrest without violence, and numerous burglary counts. 1 The plea was made with the understanding that the state was seeking habitual offender sentencing, but would not recommend a sentence greater than fifteen years. 2 The plea was accepted and appellant was subsequently sentenced as a habitual felony offender in accordance with the plea agreement.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred by sentencing him as a habitual offender, because the predicate prior felony convictions relied on therefor occurred on the same date. See Joyner v. State, 158 Fla. 806, 30 So.2d 304 (1947); Shead v. State, 367 So.2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The state counters, arguing that an amendment to the statute effective October 1, 1989, clearly permits a defendant to be habitualized under the statute regardless of whether the qualifying convictions were entered simultaneously. Specifically, the state argues that whereas the 1988 version of Section 775.084(1), Florida Statutes, defined a habitual felony offender as including a defendant who had "previously been convicted of two or more felonies in this state," which this court in Barnes v. State, 576 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), interpreted as requiring sequential convictions, the 1989 definition includes a defendant who has "previously been convicted of any combination of two or more felonies in this state or other qualified offenses [.]" (Emphasis added.) This "any combination" language, the state argues, overrules prior constructions of the statute requiring sequential convictions for habitualization purposes.

We cannot agree with the state's position. The sequential conviction requirement is one of long standing. Nothing in the 1989 amendment addresses the timing of the qualified offenses. If the legislature intended to overrule the sequential conviction requirement, it was obligated to do so in unmistakable language. Barnes, at 759-62. See also State ex rel. Housing Auth. of Plant City v. Kirk, 231 So.2d 522, 524 (Fla.1970). Moreover, it appears that the sole intent of the 1989 amendment was to expand the definition of "qualified offenses" to include out-of-state offenses with elements and penalties similar to offenses in this state. See Secs. 775.084(1)(a)1, .084(1)(c), Fla.Stat. (1989); Ch. 89-280, Sec. 1, Laws of Fla.; Staff of Fla.H.R.Comm. on Crim.Just., S.B. 582 1989 Staff Analysis 2 (final). Absent any express language or clear legislative intent to overrule the sequential conviction requirement, we hold that habitualization must be supported by sequential convictions under the 1989 version of section 775.084. Consequently, because all of appellant's previous convictions occurred on the same day, appellant does not qualify as a habitual offender and his enhanced sentences therefor must be reversed. Nevertheless, in accordance with Razz v. State, 576 So.2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), we certify the following question to the supreme court as one of great public importance:

WHETHER SECTION 775.084(1)(a)1, FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), WHICH DEFINES HABITUAL FELONY OFFENDERS AS THOSE WHO HAVE "PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY COMBINATION OF TWO OR MORE FELONIES IN THIS STATE OR OTHER QUALIFIED OFFENSES," REQUIRES THAT EACH OF THE FELONIES BE COMMITTED AFTER CONVICTION FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PREVIOUS OFFENSE?

Alternatively, the state argues that appellant's habitual felony offender sentences should be affirmed, because he received the sentences for which he bargained. The fact that the sentences were entered in accordance with the terms of a plea agreement does not, however, compel affirmance for the reason that once appellant's status as a habitual felony offender is vacated, the sentences for certain of the underlying predicate offenses exceed the statutory maximum. For example, the third degree felony convictions carry a statutory maximum punishment of five years, 3 yet appellant received ten-year sentences therefor. Consequently, these sentences must be reversed, even though based on a plea bargain. Bernard v. State, 571 So.2d 560, 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 199...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Gaskins v. State, 91-106
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 12 Octubre 1992
    ...So.2d 501, 503 (Fla.1986), clarified in Quarterman v. State, 527 So.2d 1380 (Fla.1988); Rhoden, 448 So.2d at 1016; Fuller v. State, 578 So.2d 887, 889 (Fla. 1st DCA1991), quashed on other grounds, 595 So.2d 20 (Fla.1992); Poppell v. State, 509 So.2d 390, 390 (Fla. 1st DCA1987); Bernard v. S......
  • Fuller v. State, 90-2421
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 9 Octubre 1992
    ...arbitrary, vague, and standardless; and (4) that the trial court erred by failing to conduct an oral plea colloquy. In Fuller v. State, 578 So.2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), we reversed appellant's habitual felony offender sentence for lack of sequential convictions and certified the question ......
  • Key v. State, s. 90-3496
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 6 Noviembre 1991
    ...convictions be sequential. See Barnes v. State, 576 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and cases cited therein. See also Fuller v. State, 578 So.2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The record in this case reflects that appellant has five prior felony convictions, and that not all of the underlying offe......
  • Harrison v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 22 Agosto 1991
    ...1990). This requirement of sequentiality was not eliminated in the amendment to the statute effective October 1, 1989. Fuller v. State, 578 So.2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). While there is no disagreement between the parties as to the applicability of the above citations, the state contends th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT