Geohagen v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 82846,82846 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly S345 Steven GEOHAGEN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender and John R. Dixon and Abel Gomez, Asst. Public Defenders, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., James W. Rogers, Bureau Chief, and Amelia L. Beisner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
We review State v. Geohagen, 633 So.2d 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), in which the court certified the following as a question of great public importance:
IN ADOPTING THE "RATIONALE" OF THE EN BANC OPINION IN KING V. STATE, 597 SO.2D 309 (FLA. 2D DCA 1992), DID THE DECISION IN McKNIGHT V. STATE, 616 SO.2D 31 (FLA.1993) EXPRESSLY ADOPT THAT PORTION OF THE OPINION IN KING HOLDING THAT UPON SENTENCING A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO COMMUNITY CONTROL OR PROBATION, THE TRIAL COURT MUST (1) FIND PURSUANT TO § 775.084(4)(C) THAT A SENTENCE AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER WAS NOT NECESSARY AND (2) SENTENCE THE OFFENDER UNDER THE GUIDELINES, SETTING
Id. at 24. We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.
Steven Geohagen pled no contest to charges of grand theft and fraudulent use of a credit card. The trial court found that Geohagen was a habitual offender yet sentenced him to five years' probation, a downward departure from the two and one-half to five and one-half years of incarceration recommended by the sentencing guidelines. The trial judge did not provide written reasons for the downward departure.
The State appealed and the district court of appeal, relying on McKnight v. State, 616 So.2d 31 (Fla.1993), reversed Geohagen's sentence. The court stated that there was no indication in the record of a determination by the trial judge that a habitual offender sentence was not necessary to protect the public. In addition, the court held that the trial judge erred by not providing written reasons for his downward departure from the sentencing guidelines recommendation.
In King v. State, 597 So.2d 309, 316 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 602 So.2d 942 (Fla.1992), the court held that a judge who wishes to impose a sentence upon a habitual offender more lenient than the one provided by the habitual offender statute must decide that an enhanced sentence is not necessary to protect the public. See § 775.084(4)(c), Fla.Stat. (1989); id. at 316. Further, if the judge chooses not to impose a habitual offender sentence, the judge must still adhere to the sentencing guidelines. Id. In McKnight, 616 So.2d at 31, this Court adopted King's holding and rationale.
We did not intend nor do we read King to require a specific finding that an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. State, 93-1261
...sentence under section 775.082, Florida Statutes (1989) instead. See State v. Rinkins, 646 So.2d 727 (Fla.1994); Geohagen v. State, 639 So.2d 611 (Fla.1994); King, 597 So.2d at 314-15 ("conclud[ing] that a trial judge retains the discretion to ... decide not to sentence the defendant as an ......
-
Mack v. State
...can still determine that sentencing under the habitual offender statute is not necessary for the protection of the public. Geohagen v. State, 639 So.2d 611 (Fla.1994). Moreover, the judge need not make a specific finding that an enhanced sentence is not necessary for the protection of the p......
-
Pankhurst v. State
...is not more lenient than that required by the habitual offender statute or recommended by the sentencing guidelines.2 Geohagen v. State, 639 So.2d 611 (Fla.1994); State v. Rinkins, 646 So.2d 727 Needless to say, a term of probation is more lenient than a term of years and is, therefore, not......
-
King v. State
...can still determine that sentencing under the habitual offender statute is not necessary for the protection of the public. Geohagen v. State, 639 So.2d 611 (Fla.1994). Moreover, the judge need not make a specific finding that an enhanced sentence is not necessary for the protection of the p......