TYSINGER THOMPSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 felony offender statute, as amended, does not require a finding of necessity for public protection, and failure to object to scoresheet errors waives appellate review.
Appellant was sentenced under the habitual felony offender statute after pleading no contest to robbery, grand theft, burglary, and resisting an offic…
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 Sentencing Guidelines Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
GERSTEN, Judge.
Appellant, Tysinger Thompson, appeals his sentence for robbery, grand theft, burglary and resisting an officer without violence. We affirm.
Appellant pled no contest to the charges. The trial court sentenced appellant under the habitual felony offender statute, section 775.084; Fla.Stat. (1989).
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a habitual offender without making specific findings of fact showing the necessity of an enhanced sentence for the protection of the public. Appellant also contends that the sentencing guideline scoresheet was incorrect and not supplemented by certified copies of prior convictions.
Section 775.084(3), as amended, does not require a finding that a habitual offender sentence is necessary for the protection of the public. Johnson v. State, 564 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Taylor v. State, 559 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Arnold v. State, 566 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), review denied, 576 So. 2d 284 (Fla.1991). Accordingly, we find no merit in appellant’s contention.
Finally, in order to preserve appellant’s other issues for appeal, appellant was required to object to the inclusion of points for prior convictions in the score-sheet. Absent an objection from appellant, any sentencing errors, not apparent on the face of the record, are not cognizable on appeal. Dailey v. State, 488 So. 2d 532 (Fla.1986).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Arnold v. State, 566 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- THE Florida BAR v. Rightmyer, 488 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1986)
- Taylor v. State, 559 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Johnson v. State, 564 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)