State v. Blackwell, s. 84071

• Decision Date: 20 July 1995
• Docket Number: 84176,84148,84150 and 83951,Nos. 84071,s. 84071
• Citation: 661 So.2d 282
• Parties: 20 Fla. L. Weekly S354, 20 Fla. L. Weekly S427 STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Richard BLACKWELL, Respondent. STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Jessie BROWN, II, Respondent. STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Darryl HOLMES, Respondent. STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Robert JONES, Respondent. STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Willie T. THOMPSON, Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 282

661 So.2d 282

20 Fla. L. Weekly S354, 20 Fla. L. Weekly S427

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Richard BLACKWELL, Respondent.

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Jessie BROWN, II, Respondent.

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Darryl HOLMES, Respondent.

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Robert JONES, Respondent.

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Willie T. THOMPSON, Respondent.

Nos. 84071, 84176, 84148, 84150 and 83951.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 20, 1995.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 11, 1995.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen.; and Robin Compton Jones and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Asst. Attys. Gen., Daytona Beach, for petitioner.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender; and Nancy Ryan, Brynn Newton, M.A. Lucas, Daniel J. Schafer and S.C. Vanvoorhees, Asst. Public Defenders, Daytona Beach, for respondents.

SHAW, Justice.

We have for review the following decisions based on conflict with Ashley v. State, 614 So.2d 486 (Fla.1993): Blackwell v. State, 638 So.2d 119 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Brown v. State, 638 So.2d 120 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Holmes v. State, 639 So.2d 151 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Jones v. State, 639 So.2d 147 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); and Thompson v. State, 638 So.2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, Sec. 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We quash Blackwell, Brown, Holmes, Jones, and Thompson.

The defendants in the above consolidated cases pled guilty to various crimes, submitting written pleas containing the following provisions:

4. I have read the information or indictment in this case and I understand the charge(s) to which I enter my plea(s). My attorney has explained to me the total maximum penalties of the charge(s) and as a result I understand the following:

a. That should the Judge impose a guidelines sentence, I could receive up to a maximum sentence of ____ years imprisonment and a maximum fine of ____ or both.

b. That should the Judge impose a departure sentence, I could receive up to a maximum sentence of ____ years imprisonment and a fine of ____ or both.

c. That should I be determined by the Judge to be a Violent Habitual Felony Offender, and should the Judge sentence me as such, I could receive up to a maximum sentence of ____ years imprisonment and a mandatory minimum of ____ years imprisonment and that as to any habitual offender sentence I would not be entitled to receive any basic gain time.

d. That should I be determined by the Judge to be a Non-Violent Habitual Felony Offender, and should the Judge sentence me as such, I could receive up to a maximum sentence ____ years imprisonment and a mandatory minimum of ____ years imprisonment and that as to any habitual offender sentence I would not be entitled to receive any basic gain time.

e. That whether a guidelines sentence or departure sentence or habitual offender sentence, I will receive a mandatory minimum sentence of ____ years imprisonment.

The blank spaces in each plea were filled in with appropriate data.

The court discussed the pleas with the defendants and accepted the pleas. Later, the defendants were served with written notice of a separate proceeding to determine if they qualified for habitual offender treatment. After concluding that they qualified the court habitualized each defendant. The district court reversed the sentences pursuant to Ashley v. State, 614 So.2d 486 (Fla.1993), and remanded for resentencing. The State petitioned for review.

This Court in Ashley held that before a court can habitualize a defendant pursuant to a plea two steps must be completed:

In sum, we hold that in order for a defendant to be habitualized following a guilty or nolo plea, the following must take place prior to acceptance of the plea: 1) The defendant must be given written notice of intent to habitualize, and 2) the court must confirm that the defendant is personally aware of the possibility and reasonable consequences of habitualization.

Ashley, 614 So.2d at 490 (footnote omitted). ¹

In the present cases, each defendant was informed of the possibility and consequences of habitualization via the provisions of his written plea. Additionally, prior to accepting the pleas, the court discussed the pleas with the defendants. The issue posed by these cases is whether these circumstances were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Ashley.

In Ashley, the defendant was given no notice whatsoever of habitualization prior to acceptance of his plea. The entire discussion at the plea hearing centered on the sentencing guidelines, indicating a guidelines sentence would be forthcoming. Habitualization was never...