Ridley v. State, s. 96-04825
| Decision Date | 14 November 1997 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 96-04825,96-02908,s. 96-04825 |
| Citation | 702 So.2d 559 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2605 Joseph RIDLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anne E. Sheer, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
These consolidated appeals challenge the trial court's determination that Joseph Ridley's convictions for felony petit theft 1 were subject to further enhanced penalties under the habitual offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1995). Initially the trial court found Ridley to be a habitual offender and imposed a sentence of community control. That sanction is the subject of appeal in this court's case number 96-02908. While that appeal was pending in this court, Ridley violated the terms of his supervision and the trial court imposed a habitual offender prison sentence, resulting in appeal number 96-04825. In this latter appeal, Ridley has agreed to forego any challenge to the trial court's finding that he violated the terms of his supervision. The parties concur that the sentences imposed in case number 96-02908 did not comport with the penalties authorized for the crimes; the same principles apply to the challenge to the sentences in case number 96-04825, and that appeal has been decided by consent of the parties without briefing.
Prior to 1992, section 812.014(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1991), provided that sentencing for felony petit theft was governed by sections 775.082 (general criminal penalties), 775.083 (criminal fines), or 775.084 (habitual offenders), Florida Statutes (1991). Effective October 1, 1992, however, the statute was amended by chapter 92-79, § 1, Laws of Florida, and reference to the habitual offender statute, section 775.084, was deleted. See § 812.014(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1992), now renumbered as § 812.014(3)(c) (1995), the statute which is the subject of this appeal.
When the legislature amends a statute by omitting words, or, in this instance, reference to a statute, the general rule of construction is to presume that the legislature intended the statute to have a different meaning from that accorded it before the amendment. See Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Buck, 594 So.2d 280, 283 (Fla.1992). Additionally, the Third District has pointed out that the Committee Notes on the 1992 amendment provide that "the changes in the committee substitute provide the person who is prosecuted on an enhanced penalty for petit theft is not subject to habitual offender penalties." Berch v. State, 691 So.2d 1148, 1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), citing the Staff of Fla. Comm. On Crim. Just., HB 421 (1992) Staff Analysis 6 (emphasis added in Berch.)
The trial court's treatment of Ridley as a habitual offender when it placed him on community control, before this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. State
...which was amended in 1992 to indicate that habitual felony offender sentencing for felony petit theft is precluded. See Ridley v. State, 702 So.2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Berch v. State, 691 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). The trial court in the present case therefore erred in imposing a hab......
-
Wilson v. State, 5D99-2318.
...not apply the amended statute and that statute is applicable to Wilson's 1995 case and perhaps to his 1993 cases. In Ridley v. State, 702 So.2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), the court noted that when the legislature amends a statute by omitting words or reference to a statute, the general rule of......
-
Phillips v. State, 1D00-4945.
...for his felony petit theft convictions should not have been enhanced pursuant to 775.084, Florida Statutes (1995). See Ridley v. State, 702 So.2d 559 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1997). We agree that appellant's habitual felony offender (ten-year) sentence for the felony petit theft conviction is illegal,......
-
Hope v. State, 97-3630.
...under Florida Statutes section 775.084. See § 812.014, Fla. Stat.; Burke v. State, 734 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Ridley v. State, 702 So.2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Berch v. State, 691 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Moreover, since the seven-year sentence imposed by the trial court exc......
-
Tough times in the sunshine state.
...the defendant to be sentenced prior to the current offense. See Rhodes v. State, 704 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1997); Ridley v. State, 702 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1997). See also Smith v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1901 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. August 13, 1999); Gavlick v. State, 24 Fla. L.Wee......