Rolle v. State
| Decision Date | 02 October 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-2614,90-2614 |
| Citation | 586 So.2d 1293 |
| Parties | Tracey F. ROLLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. 586 So.2d 1293, 16 Fla. L. Week. D2558 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Allen J. DeWeese, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Sarah B. Mayer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Tracey F. Rolle appeals from a sentencing order. He contends that the trial court erred when it classified him as a habitual offender without making the required statutory findings of fact. We reverse and remand for resentencing.
The record shows that at the sentencing hearing the state recited appellant's record of prior convictions. The trial court, however, made no findings as required by section 775.084(1)(a). It stated only the following:
THE COURT: All right. It's the judgment of the law and the sentence of this Court, you're adjudicated guilty, sentenced to serve five years and classified as a habitual criminal, credit time served.
A trial court may impose a habitual offender sentence only by first making the statutorily required findings in a reported judicial proceeding. See Parker v. State, 546 So.2d 727 (Fla.1989). In Walker v. State, 462 So.2d 452, 454 (Fla.1985), the supreme court noted the fundamental nature of this statutory duty:
We hold that the findings required by section 775.084 are critical to the statutory scheme and enable meaningful appellate review of these types of sentencing decisions. Without these findings, the review process would be difficult, if not impossible. It is clear that the legislature intended the trial court to make specific findings of fact when sentencing a defendant as a habitual offender. Given this mandatory statutory duty, the trial court's failure to make such findings is appealable regardless of whether such failure is objected to at trial.
Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred when it sentenced appellant as a habitual offender without the required findings of section 775.084(1)(a). We remand this case to the trial court for resentencing. On remand, the court may again consider whether the habitual offender statute should be applied. See Meehan v. State, 526 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. State, 92-0716
...felony offender upon making the predicate findings as required by section 775.084(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991). See Rolle v. State, 586 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). The absence of any findings precludes the application of State v. Rucker, 613 So.2d 460 AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PAR......
-
Elliott v. State, 91-2180
...record, and because of this we reverse for a new sentencing proceeding. See Walker v. State, 462 So.2d 452 (Fla.1985); Rolle v. State, 586 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). On remand the trial court may resentence Appellant as a habitual offender if the required statutory findings are made an......
-
Chaney v. State, 91-2287
...findings of fact, 1 classified appellant as an habitual felony offender and pronounced sentence. This was error. Rolle v. State, 586 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Notwithstanding, appellant is entitled to no relief in this respect because the error is clearly harmless. State v. Rucker, 61......
-
Pleasant v. State, 91-2546
...fundamental error, Jones v. State, 606 So.2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Walker v. State, 462 So.2d 452, 454 (Fla.1985); Rolle v. State, 586 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), we vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing. See Martin v. State, 592 So.2d 1219, 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA Appellant al......