Parker v. State, No. 73819
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | OVERTON; EHRLICH |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 384 Timmie Lewis PARKER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 27 July 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 73819 |
Page 727
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Page 728
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and Kathleen Stover, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and A.E. (Ned) Pooser, IV, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
OVERTON, Justice.
We have for review Parker v. State, 538 So.2d 978 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), in which Parker challenges the validity of his habitual offender sentence because the trial court's findings were not in writing. The district court affirmed the sentence and acknowledged conflict with Hoefert v. State, 509 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We approve the district court's decision.
The pertinent facts reflect that the trial court imposed upon Parker an habitual offender sentence pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1987), 1 and, in doing so, made specific findings at Parker's sentencing hearing, which was reported by a court reporter. The district court of appeal affirmed the sentence, 2 concluding that the trial court's findings that Parker was an habitual offender were not required to be in writing so long as the express findings required by the statute were made at a reported hearing. Parker, 538 So.2d at 978.
Parker argues that "almost every Florida scheme permitting extraordinary sentencing requires findings of fact and reasons justifying the sentence to be in writing." In this regard, he relies on our decisions and the applicable statute or rule which require written findings to (1) justify the death sentence, 3 (2) sentence a juvenile as an adult, 4 and (3) impose a sentence which departs from the prescribed sentencing guidelines. 5 Parker argues that the
Page 729
same rule should apply to habitual offender sentencing. We disagree. The applicable statute or rule in the three instances relied on by Parker specifically requires the underlying reasons for the sentence to be in writing. To the contrary, section 775.084 contains no such requirement.We have addressed this identical issue in Eutsey v. State, 383 So.2d 219 (Fla.1980), and stated:
Section 775.084(3)(d) [Florida Statutes (1977) ] requires that the trial court make findings of fact that show on their face that an extended term is necessary to protect the public from defendant's further criminal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. State, No. 89-1227
...(Fla.1984). These specific findings need not be in writing so long as they are made at a reported judicial proceeding. Parker v. State, 546 So.2d 727 (Fla.1989). A mere reference to a defendant's criminal history and a conclusory statement that a finding of habitual offender was necessary t......
-
Daniels v. State, Nos. 91-2458
...Cochran each met the definition of a habitual violent felony offender. See State v. Rucker, 613 So.2d 460 (Fla.1993); Parker v. State, 546 So.2d 727 (Fla.1989). Any failure to make more specific findings was harmless where neither defendant now asserts that his prior conviction was pardoned......
-
Spriggs v. State, No. 91-1199
...If the required findings are made on the record at a reported hearing, then they need not be reduced to writing. Parker v. State, 546 So.2d 727 (Fla.1989). In Parker, the court made clear that the requirement for written findings in other sentencing situations--such as the death penalty, se......
-
Troutman v. State, No. 80,495
...we have noted previously, the writing requirements in these statutory schemes and in section 39.059(7) are similar. See Parker v. State, 546 So.2d 727, 728-29 (Fla.1989). The similarity exists because of the need to ensure that statutory safeguards are strictly maintained when trial judges ......
-
Adams v. State, No. 89-1227
...(Fla.1984). These specific findings need not be in writing so long as they are made at a reported judicial proceeding. Parker v. State, 546 So.2d 727 (Fla.1989). A mere reference to a defendant's criminal history and a conclusory statement that a finding of habitual offender was necessary t......
-
Daniels v. State, Nos. 91-2458
...Cochran each met the definition of a habitual violent felony offender. See State v. Rucker, 613 So.2d 460 (Fla.1993); Parker v. State, 546 So.2d 727 (Fla.1989). Any failure to make more specific findings was harmless where neither defendant now asserts that his prior conviction was pardoned......
-
Spriggs v. State, No. 91-1199
...If the required findings are made on the record at a reported hearing, then they need not be reduced to writing. Parker v. State, 546 So.2d 727 (Fla.1989). In Parker, the court made clear that the requirement for written findings in other sentencing situations--such as the death penalty, se......
-
Troutman v. State, No. 80,495
...we have noted previously, the writing requirements in these statutory schemes and in section 39.059(7) are similar. See Parker v. State, 546 So.2d 727, 728-29 (Fla.1989). The similarity exists because of the need to ensure that statutory safeguards are strictly maintained when trial judges ......