JAMES L. SHERMAN, 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 habitual offender statute cannot be used for guidelines departure and that the challenged statute did not violate the Florida Constitution.
Appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender, leading to a departure from sentencing guidelines. Appellant also challenged the constitutionality of …
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 Community Service In Lieu Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant pled nolo contendere to the charge of grand theft and was sentenced to seven years in prison. The reason given for the departure from the sentencing guidelines was the determination that appellant was a habitual offender. The supreme court recently held that the habitual offender statute cannot be used as a basis for guidelines departure. Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1986). Therefore, the appellant’s sentence cannot stand.
Since appellant had been determined to be indigent, appellant’s sentence also included a requirement to perform community service in lieu of $200 costs required by section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985). Appellant attacks the constitutionality of the statute on two grounds.
His argument that section 27.3455 violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution has been rejected in Johnson v. State, 495 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), and need not be further discussed.
Appellant also contends that the passage of section 27.3455 violated article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution by amending section 939.05, Florida Statutes (1983), and section 944.275, Florida Statutes (1983), without setting out in full the amended acts. Because section 27.3455 did not purport to amend these statutes and is not in irreconcilable conflict with either of them, there was no such constitutional violation. State v. J.R.M., 388 So. 2d 1227 (Fla.1980); Auto Owners Insurance Co. v. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, 153 So. 2d 722 (Fla.1963); City of St. Petersburg v. English, 54 Fla. 585, 45 So. 483 (1907).
We affirm appellant’s conviction. We vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sherman v. State, 536 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…PER CURIAM. The appellant, James Lewis Sherman, challenges the judgment and sentence entered by the trial court after this court, in a previous decision, reversed the appellant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. In Sherman v. State, 500 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), we reversed the trial court’s departure from the sentencing guidelines because the only reason given for departure was invalid. On remand, the trial court enunciated a new reason for departure and imposed the same sentence. We ag…
Authorities Cited
- Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)
- Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Hillsborough Cnty. Aviation Auth., 153 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1963)
- Johnson v. State, 495 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- City of St. Petersburg v. English, 54 Fla. 585 (Fla. 1907)
- THE Fla. BAR. Re Petition TO Amend Fla. BAR Integration Rule, 388 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 1980)