Walsingham v. State, 79399
| Decision Date | 23 July 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 79399,79399 |
| Parties | Charles Andrew WALSINGHAM, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. 602 So.2d 1297, 17 Fla. L. Week. S555 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and Robert D. Rosen, Asst. Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Michelle Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.
We review Walsingham v. State, 590 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 2d DCA1991), based on conflict jurisdiction. 1
Walsingham was convicted of the first-degree felony of arson and found to be a habitual offender. The trial court sentenced Walsingham to 25 years in prison followed by 20 years probation. The Second District affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence as illegal, ruling that "the court should have sentenced the defendant to life in accordance with section 775.084(4)(a)1." Walsingham v. State, 576 So.2d 365, 366 (Fla. 2d DCA1991). At resentencing, the trial court indicated that it preferred the sentence it originally imposed, but was forced to choose between life and the guidelines sentence of 7-9 years. The trial court chose to sentence the petitioner to life as a habitual offender. On appeal, the Second District affirmed Walsingham's life sentence. Walsingham v. State, 590 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
We held in Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 267 (Fla.1992), that sentencing under the habitual offender statute is permissive, not mandatory. In this case, the trial court indicated that it did not have discretion to decline to impose a life sentence.
Accordingly, we quash the decision below and remand for the trial court to reconsider Walsingham's sentence in light of our determination in Burdick that sentencing under the habitual offender statute is discretionary.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Reinesto v. Superior Court of State In and For County of Navajo, 1
-
State v. Hudson
...This Court has repeatedly held that sentencing under the habitual offender statute is permissive, not mandatory. Walsingham v. State, 602 So.2d 1297 (Fla.1992); Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 267 (Fla.1992). This discretion extends to sentencing under both section 775.084(4)(a), Florida Statut......
-
New v. State
...for a term of years not exceeding thirty, and such offender shall not be eligible for release for 10 years. 2. See Walsingham v. State, 602 So.2d 1297, 1297 (Fla.1992) (stating that "sentencing under the habitual offender statute is permissive, not mandatory"); Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 2......
-
Newell v. State
...stated: This Court has repeatedly held that sentencing under the habitual offender statute is permissive, not mandatory. Walsingham v. State, 602 So.2d 1297 (Fla.1992); Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 267 (Fla.1992). This discretion extends to sentencing under both section 775.084(4)(a), Florid......
-
Tough times in the sunshine state.
...the sentencing hearing within seven days. See supra note 34. (43) See State v. Hudson 698 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1997); Walsingham v. State, 602 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 1992); Zequeira v. State, 671 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1996). Since imposition of the minimum mandatory portion of a habitual violen......