Winters v. State
| Decision Date | 25 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 70164,70164 |
| Citation | 522 So.2d 816,13 Fla. L. Weekly 156 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 156 Peter WINTERS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and Kathleen Stover, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Kenneth Muszynski and William A. Hatch, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
This case is before us on the following certified question posed in Winters v. State, 500 So.2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986):
Is the habitual offender statute still an effective basis on which to exceed the statutory maximum as long as the sentence imposed does not exceed the guidelines recommendation?
Id. at 305. We answer in the affirmative and approve the result reached below.
Petitioner was convicted of attempted unarmed robbery, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Because of petitioner's prior record of at least four felony convictions, the guidelines recommended seven to nine years imprisonment. In order to impose the guidelines sentence, which exceeded the statutory maximum, the trial judge applied the habitual offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1985). In this way, the statutory maximum effectively was extended from five to ten years. The district court affirmed. 500 So.2d at 305.
Both parties agree that the certified question addresses an issue left unresolved in Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986), and both argue that Whitehead supports their respective positions.
The central premise underlying Whitehead is that any conflict between the habitual offender statute and the sentencing guidelines must be resolved in favor of the guidelines and their policies. See id. at 865. Thus, we held in Whitehead that a defendant's status as an habitual offender did not justify a departure from the recommended guidelines sentence, since to hold otherwise would eviscerate the policy of uniformity underlying the guidelines:
[S]uch sentences would be disproportionately harsh when compared to the sentences of other offenders who have committed similar crimes and have similar criminal records but were not subjected to habitual offender proceedings. Such a result would be contrary to the explicit purpose of the sentencing guidelines which is to "eliminate unwarranted variation in the sentencing process."
Id. at 866 (citation omitted). Moreover, we found that allowing departure based on habitual offender status would result in some similarly situated defendants receiving a "double enhancement" while others would not. Such unequal treatment was impermissible, particularly in light of our finding that the legislative goals of enhancing punishment for offenders with prior records were fully met by the enactment of the guidelines. Id. at 865.
The issue presented here, however, is not inconsistency with the guidelines. On the contrary, the extended statutory maximum established by section 775.084, Florida Statutes, actually means that the full guidelines recommendation can be imposed. As we recently stated in Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla.1987), this Court's obligation is to give effect to two separate statutes to the extent they may be construed as having mutually consistent fields of operation. See Wakulla County v. Davis, 395 So.2d 540, 542 (Fla.1981); Oldham v. Rooks, 361 So.2d 140, 143 (Fla.1978)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Moore
...reason for departure from the guidelines. In State v. Glenn, 558 So.2d 4, 7 (Fla.1990), this Court further clarified that Winters v. State, 522 So.2d 816 (Fla.1988), was merely a refinement of habitual offender caselaw. In Winters, this Court had approved the use of the habitual offender st......
-
State v. Glenn
...law and not one which required retroactive application. 534 So.2d at 1146. In reaching this conclusion, we found support in Winters v. State, 522 So.2d 816 (Fla.1988), which clarified the effect of Whitehead on the relationship between the habitual offender statute and the sentencing guidel......
-
Nixon v. State
...by this Court at the sentencing hearing." We agree that reasons 3 and 4 are not clear and convincing reasons for departure. Winters v. State, 522 So.2d 816 (Fla.1988); Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986); State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985), abrogated on other grounds, Mill......
-
Rowe v. State, 88-4
...to the release of our opinion in this case, and not published until after our opinion had issued, the supreme court decided Winters v. State, 522 So.2d 816 (1988). There the defendant was convicted of attempted robbery, which carries a maximum sentence of five years. Because of his serious ......