White v. State, 85-316
| Decision Date | 08 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-316,85-316 |
| Citation | 481 So.2d 1258,11 Fla. L. Weekly 174 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 174 Elijah E. WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Ann N. Radabaugh, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James A. Young, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
The state charged the defendant Elijah White with grand theft, resisting a police officer without violence, and resisting a merchant's efforts to recover merchandise. A jury found the defendant guilty of the first two charges. The court then adjudicated the defendant guilty of grand theft and resisting a police officer. The trial judge sentenced the defendant to serve prison terms of ten years and sixty days, respectively. The sentences were to be served consecutively. In sentencing the defendant, the judge departed from the recommended sentence under the guidelines. The reason given for the departure was that the defendant was an habitual offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1983). See McCuiston v. State, 462 So.2d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (). Defendant raises three points on appeal.
First, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to make the specific findings of fact required under the habitual offender statute to show that an extended prison term was necessary to protect the public from defendant's further criminal conduct. § 775.084(3). Defendant relies on Scott v. State, 446 So.2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), to support his position.
In Scott, the trial court merely stated that, based on the defendant's record and the particular facts of the case, it was necessary to treat the defendant as a subsequent felony offender. We held that such findings did not satisfy the requirements of section 775.084(3). We find the present case distinguishable from Scott.
In concluding that an extended term of imprisonment was required for the protection of the public, the trial judge here analyzed the defendant's conduct and noted that it demonstrated a conscious pattern of lawlessness. Thus, we hold that the trial judge in this case made sufficient findings to show that an enhanced sentence was necessary to protect the public.
Next, the defendant correctly points out that the record...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pugh v. State, 88-2322
...circumstances relied on in concluding that defendant's criminal history indicated he was a danger to the community); White v. State, 481 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (wherein the trial court analyzed defendant's conduct and noted that it demonstrated a conscious pattern of Accordingly, we ......
-
Berry v. State, 85-55
...an habitual offender is insufficient. See also Wright v. State, 476 So.2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). We recognize that in White v. State, 481 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), we held a trial judge's sentencing of a defendant as an habitual offender was proper where the judge analyzed the defenda......
-
Johnson v. State, 85-861
...as a habitual offender, its attention is signalled to Eutsey v. State, 383 So.2d 219 (Fla.1980), and to our opinions in White v. State, 481 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), Ferguson v. State, 481 So.2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) and Fleming v. State, 480 So.2d 715 (Fla. 2d DCA ...
-
Sims v. State, 84-2591
...criminal activity" is inadequate without additional analysis or findings of fact in support. See Berry. Compare White v. State, 481 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), where we held the judge made sufficient findings to support an enhanced sentence in analyzing the defendant's conduct and noting......