King v. State, 77-2132
| Decision Date | 25 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-2132,77-2132 |
| Citation | 369 So.2d 1031 |
| Parties | Henry Frank KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Rendell Brown, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Glenn H. Mitchell, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
This appeal centers around a sentence as a habitual offender. We reverse and remand.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of sexual battery and petit larceny and the trial court so adjudicated; however, sentencing was deferred pending the receipt of a P.S.I. Upon receipt thereof the appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender pursuant to Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1977) from which sentence he now appeals.
Subsection (3) of the above quoted statute says "(3) In a separate proceeding, the court shall determine if it is necessary For the protection of the public to sentence the defendant to an extended term as provided in subsection (4) . . . ." (emphasis added)
The appellant does not challenge his prior convictions nor the manner in which they were proven at the hearing. Rather, he asserts that there was no evidence adduced to establish that it was necessary, for the protection of the public, to sentence him to an extended term. We agree. In Chukes v. State, 334 So.2d 289 (Fla.4th DCA 1976), the appellant therein made the same argument because although the State established that he had previously been convicted of a felony within five years of his subsequent conviction, they did not adduce any proof to show that an enhanced sentence was necessary for the protection of the public. In Chukes the court stated:
1
We therefore vacate the enhanced sentence and remand this case for further proceedings. If at that time the court determines that appellant should also be sentenced in accordance with Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1975), it shall make findings of fact supported by the record before...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. State
...and cross-examination by making no objection to the sentencing court's exclusive reliance on a "rap sheet"; and King v. State, 369 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), similarly following Chukes and requiring "proof to show" a basis for the second-stage finding. But cf. Fry v. State, 359 So.2d 5......
-
Eutsey v. State
...These findings, however, need not be in writing but may be reported in the transcript of the sentencing hearing. King v. State, 369 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). The findings of the trial court in the present case are more than sufficient to make Eutsey's appeal of his enhanced sentence E......
-
Forrest v. State, 90-1122
...if they appear in the transcript. Parker v. State, 546 So.2d 727 (Fla.1989); Eutsey, 383 So.2d at 226 (citing King v. State, 369 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)). There are no magic words that constitute specific findings of fact. Winters v. State, 500 So.2d 303, 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), app......
-
Martin v. State, 89-2518
...transcript of the habitualization hearing. Parker v. State, 546 So.2d 727 (Fla.1989); Eutsey, 383 So.2d at 226 (citing King v. State, 369 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)). We find the oral reasons contained in the transcript sufficient for habitualization, and we affirm on that basis. Howeve......