Pugh v. State, 88-2322
| Decision Date | 04 August 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-2322,88-2322 |
| Citation | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1847,547 So.2d 289 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1847 Robby Douglas PUGH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, Kathleen Stover, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Virlindia A. Sample, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Appellant, Robby Douglas Pugh, appeals the trial court's order finding him to be a habitual felony offender pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes, and imposing an enhanced sentence of ten years. We reverse and remand for resentencing.
In order to impose an enhanced sentence under the habitual offender statute, the trial court must make specific findings of fact which show on their face that an extended term is necessary in order to protect the public from the defendant's further criminal conduct. A mere conclusory statement that a finding of habitual offender was necessary to protect the public is insufficient. Rosemond v. State, 489 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Weston v. State, 452 So.2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). In the instant case, the trial court merely referred to appellant's criminal history and concluded that an extended sentence was necessary for the protection of the public. As in this court's decision in Spivey v. State, 533 So.2d 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), the court's bare conclusions "do not meet the standard for specification of reasons why appellant is dangerous and must be incarcerated for an extended term in order to protect the public." 533 So.2d at 309. Cf. Winters v. State, 500 So.2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (); White v. State, 481 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) ().
Accordingly, we vacate the trial court's habitual offender finding and reverse and remand for resentencing. The trial court may reconsider application of the habitual offender statute upon resentencing and, in the event the statute is found to apply, state specific reasons in support of its conclusion that an enhanced sentence is necessary for the protection of the public. Meehan v. State, 526 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. State, 89-1227
...face that an extended term is necessary in order to protect the public from the defendant's further criminal conduct. Pugh v. State, 547 So.2d 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Bohannon v. State, 546 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Weston v. State, 452 So.2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 456 So.2d ......
-
Forrest v. State, 90-1122
...the language of the statute that an extended term of incarceration is necessary for the protection of the public. Pugh v. State, 547 So.2d 289, 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (mere conclusory statement and reference to appellant's criminal history not enough); Bohannon (statement that "I do find f......
-
Debose v. State, 90-2377
...Appellant claims that mere reference to his prior criminal history and a conclusory statement is insufficient, citing Pugh v. State, 547 So.2d 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). In Pugh, the court held that the trial court must provide specific reasons in support of its conclusion that an enhanced se......
-
Power v. State, 89-1548
...remand, the trial court may reconsider application of the habitual offender statute when resentencing Power. Moreno; Pugh v. State, 547 So.2d 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Additionally, when imposing sentences for each of the felonies punishable by life, the "habitual offender" boxes were checke......