ENOCH DICKINSON, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the defendant's enhanced sentence as a habitual offender must be quashed due to insufficient proof of prior convictions.
The defendant was convicted of trespass and burglary of a conveyance and received an enhanced sentence as a habitual offender. The record only showed …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Habitual Offender Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence for trespass and burglary of a conveyance. We affirm defendant’s conviction and sentence except his enhanced sentence as an habitual offender under § 775.084, Florida Statutes (1977) which we quash.
The record below fails to demonstrate the defendant has either previously been convicted of a felony in this state or has twice previously been convicted of a first degree misdemeanor in this state or of another qualified offense. Section 775.084(l)(a)l.-a.b., Florida Statutes (1977). A “qualified offense” includes any offense in violation of a law of another state or of the United States that resulted in imprisonment exceeding one year. Section 775.084(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1977). The above statutes require proof of two out-of-state convictions of a qualified offense in order to justify the imposition of an enhanced sentence. Miles v. State, 374 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Shead v. State, 367 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). However; the only previous conviction which the lower court relied upon in sentencing the defendant as a habitual offender was a mail fraud conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
Therefore, that portion of defendant’s judgment and sentence which imposes an additional five years under the habitual offender act to run consecutively to his initial sentence for trespass and burglary of a conveyance is quashed. All other portions of defendant’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Affirmed as modified.
WENTWORTH, J., and WOODIE A. LILES (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Howard v. State, 469 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…is inapplicable. Section 775.- [*217] 084(l)(a)l.b. is also inapplicable because it requires two out-of-state convictions. Marshall v. State, 468 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Coots v. State, 426 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Dickinson v. State, 395 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Miles v. State, 374 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Shead v. State, 367 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Since the state established only one felony conviction from out-of-state, Howard was not properly classified as an habitual f…
Authorities Cited
- Shead v. State, 367 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Miles v. State, 374 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)