Winters v. State, No. BK-434
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | JOANOS |
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 104,500 So.2d 303 |
| Docket Number | No. BK-434 |
| Decision Date | 24 December 1986 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 104 Peter Clark WINTERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Page 303
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
First District.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 2, 1987.
Page 304
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender and Kathleen Stover, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Henri C. Cawthon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
JOANOS, Judge.
Winters appeals his sentence based on the habitual offender statute for attempted unarmed robbery. We affirm.
Appellant was convicted of attempted unarmed robbery, a third degree felony, and acquitted of charges of kidnapping and sexual battery. As a result of appellant's first appeal this court reversed his sentence which was based on the habitual offender statute and remanded for resentencing because the lower court failed to make specific findings of fact to support its sentence. See Winters v. State, 475 So.2d 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The trial court again sentenced appellant as an habitual offender. The maximum statutory penalty for attempted unarmed robbery is five years incarceration pursuant to sections 777.04, and 812.13(1) Florida Statutes (1985). The trial judge determined that appellant met the criteria of an habitual offender pursuant to section 775.084 Florida Statutes (1985) and therefore enhanced appellant's sentence by four years, for a total of nine years incarceration. The maximum sentence authorized by the habitual offender statute for a third degree felony is ten years, therefore appellant was sentenced to a term less than that which was permitted by statute. See section 775.084 (4)(a)(3) Florida Statutes (1985). The recommended guidelines sentence called for 7-9 years in prison, therefore appellant's sentence also falls within the guidelines range.
Appellant argues that the trial court did not support his habitual offender determination with specific findings, and therefore appellant's sentence cannot be enhanced. We disagree. The record reveals that at sentencing, the trial judge outlined the previous felonies for which appellant was convicted, i.e., robbery, breaking and entering, burglary, and found this current offense to be his fifth felony conviction. The trial judge concluded that all but one of appellant's crimes posed a great possibility of threat to the safety of persons or property. He further concluded that appellant's criminal history indicated that appellant is a person...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. State, No. BQ-408
...that either falls within the guidelines recommended range, Hoefert v. State, 509 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1987); Winters v. State, 500 So.2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Myers v. State, 499 So.2d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), or departs from the guidelines range for valid reasons other than habitual......
-
Inscho v. State, No. 87-437
...v. State, 503 So.2d 1342, 1346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Holmes v. State, 502 So.2d Page 166 1302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Winters v. State, 500 So.2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Myers v. State, 499 So.2d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA In Whitehead the supreme court, in holding that the status of the habitual offen......
-
Hester v. State, No. BN-253
...an extended prison term was necessary for the protection of the public. Section 775.084(3), Florida Statutes (1985); Winters v. State, 500 So.2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA Appellant also asserts that the trial court erred in departing from the guidelines based upon reasons already factored into the ......
-
Forrest v. State, No. 90-1122
...369 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)). Page 976 There are no magic words that constitute specific findings of fact. Winters v. State, 500 So.2d 303, 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), approved, 522 So.2d 816 (Fla.1988). However, the necessary findings must explain the reason why the defendant is danger......
-
Hall v. State, No. BQ-408
...that either falls within the guidelines recommended range, Hoefert v. State, 509 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1987); Winters v. State, 500 So.2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Myers v. State, 499 So.2d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), or departs from the guidelines range for valid reasons other than habitual......
-
Inscho v. State, No. 87-437
...v. State, 503 So.2d 1342, 1346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Holmes v. State, 502 So.2d Page 166 1302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Winters v. State, 500 So.2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Myers v. State, 499 So.2d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA In Whitehead the supreme court, in holding that the status of the habitual offen......
-
Hester v. State, No. BN-253
...an extended prison term was necessary for the protection of the public. Section 775.084(3), Florida Statutes (1985); Winters v. State, 500 So.2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA Appellant also asserts that the trial court erred in departing from the guidelines based upon reasons already factored into the ......
-
Forrest v. State, No. 90-1122
...369 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)). Page 976 There are no magic words that constitute specific findings of fact. Winters v. State, 500 So.2d 303, 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), approved, 522 So.2d 816 (Fla.1988). However, the necessary findings must explain the reason why the defendant is danger......