CHRISTINA WELSH, 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 while the record may support habitual offender sentencing, the trial judge's findings were insufficient under the statute.
Appellant was convicted of grand theft and sentenced as a habitual offender based on prior convictions. The trial judge made findings to support the e…
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 Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
Christina Welsh appeals her judgment and sentence for grand theft. She raises two points on appeal. We find merit only in her contention that the trial judge made insufficient findings in support of her enhanced sentence under section 775.-084(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1983).
Appellant was found guilty by a jury and subsequently sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment as a habitual offender. The record reveals that she had previously been convicted of three felonies, four misdemeanors, and twenty-nine category six theft offenses. In support of the habitual offender determination, the trial judge found “that the deféndant has previously been convicted of felonies in this state within the last five years, that the defendant’s convictions have not been set aside or [sic] has she received a pardon, that the imposition of sentence under Florida Statute 775.084 ... is necessary for the protection of the public from further criminal activity....”
Pursuant to section 775.084(3)(d), a trial court is required to make specific findings of fact that show on their face the necessity of an enhanced sentence for the protection of the public from a defendant’s further criminal activity. Fry v. State, 359 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Scott v. State, 446 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Berry v. State, 484 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
Although the record appears to provide sufficient support for sentencing appellant as a habitual offender, the findings do not meet the requirements of section 775.-084(3)(d). See White v. State, 481 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
We affirm appellant’s conviction but vacate her sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Watson v. State, 492 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…necessary to protect the public from the defendant’s future criminal behavior. See Walker v. State, 462 So. 2d 452 (Fla.1985); Bogan v. State, 489 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Rosemond v. State, 489 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Welsh v. State, 486 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Winters v. State, 475 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Hopkins v. State, 463 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Scott v. State, 446 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Little v. State, 440 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). A general statemen…
Authorities Cited
- Scott v. State, 446 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- FRY v. State, 359 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- DCA Homes, Inc. v. City OF Miramar, 481 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Berry v. State, 484 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)