Holt v. State, AX-70
| Decision Date | 03 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. AX-70,AX-70 |
| Citation | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1634,472 So.2d 551 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1634 Larry HOLT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Terry P. Lewis, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and John W. Tiedemann, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
This appeal is from a judgment and sentence for assisting in a riot and hurling deadly missiles at buildings. At the time the offenses were committed, appellant was an inmate at Cross City Correctional Institution. On appeal he raises the following three points: I. Whether the trial court erred in denying the defense motion for discharge; II. Whether the trial court erred in denying the defense motion for judgment of acquittal; and III. Whether the trial court erred in sentencing under the guidelines and in departing therefrom. We find no error under Points I and II, and affirm. Specifically, as to Point I, we affirm on the basis of Height v. State, 459 So.2d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). However, we do find error under Point III, and therefore vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
We initially disagree with appellant's position that the trial court improperly applied section 775.084, the habitual felony offender statute, in sentencing him under the guidelines. This Court has held on several occasions that the habitual felony offender statute remains applicable even though an individual may be subject to sentence under the sentencing guidelines. Whitehead v. State, 467 So.2d 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Walker v. State, 473 So.2d 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Cuthbert v. State, 459 So.2d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Nevertheless, we do agree that sentencing errors did occur below. Fundamental to sentencing under the guidelines where, as here, the offense was committed prior to their October 1, 1983 effective date, is the defendant's affirmative selection to be so sentenced. Here, the record does not indicate such an affirmative selection on appellant's part. That, in itself, is reversible error. Patterson v. State, 462 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Randolph v. State, 458 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The error was compounded, however, by the trial court's failure to put in writing its reasons for departing from the guidelines. Again, that omission constitutes reversible error. Oden v. State, 463 So.2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Gage v. State, 461 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Millett v. State, 460 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Roux v. State, 455 So.2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Jackson v. State, 454 So.2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Since the cause will be remanded to the trial court for resentencing, we caution the court, in the event it again sentences appellant as a habitual felony offender, to pay careful heed to the statutory scheme of section 775.084 and to make specific findings of fact as to why it is necessary for the protection of the public to sentence appellant to an extended term. Section 775.084(4)(a), Fla.Stat. (1983). A bare, conclusory statement to that effect is insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement. Walker v. State, 462 So.2d 452 (Fla.1985).
Next, should appellant affirmatively select sentencing under the guidelines, we point out that the court's finding, supported by the record, that appellant is a habitual felony offender constitutes a clear and convincing reason for departure. Whitehead v. State. Nevertheless, if the sentence exceeds the guidelines' recommended range for that reason, the court must still comply with rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCuiston v. State
...district courts of appeal had upheld departures predicated upon the habitual felony offender status of the defendant. Holt v. State, 472 So.2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Brady v. State, 457 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Gann v. State, 459 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).3 We also agree with th......
-
Cawthon v. State, 85-957
...(1983).3 § 810.06, Fla.Stat. (1983).4 §§ 784.021(1)(a) & 777.04(1), Fla.Stat. (1983).5 Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(11).6 Holt v. State, 472 So.2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).7 See Roberson v. State, 483 So.2d 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Smith v. State, 480 So.2d 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Scurry v. State......
-
Burge v. State, BF-317
...would have to meet with the precise requirements of the statute. Dean v. State, 493 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Holt v. State, 472 So.2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). ...
-
Winters v. State, BA-145
...which the trial judge relied on in making that finding." Adams v. State, 376 So.2d 47, 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); see also Holt v. State, 472 So.2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); and Weston v. State, 452 So.2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). "That finding" referred to in Adams is the second-stage determinat......