KATOYA L. WALLACE, 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 State failed to provide sufficient documentation to support habitual felony offender sentencing.
[1] A claim that a trial court did not sentence a defendant according to a negotiated plea agreement is procedurally barred if the defendant did not file a timely motion to w…
[2] The State bears the burden of proving that a defendant qualifies for sentencing as a habitual felony offender.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant appealed his sentence as a habitual felony offender, arguing the State did not provide a certified copy of one prior conviction. The rec…
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 Felony Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
COVINGTON, Judge.
Katoya L. Wallace is appealing his sentence as a habitual felony offender. Wallace raises two issues in this appeal. First, Wallace argues that the trial court erred when it did not sentence him according to the negotiated plea agreement. However, Wallace did not raise this issue in a timely filed motion to withdraw his plea. Thus, we decline to address the merits of this claim. Williams v. State, 821 So. 2d 1267, 1268-69 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Wallace next submits that his sentence as a habitual felony offender was improper because the State did not provide a certified copy of one of his prior convictions. Because we agree that the State did not provide the necessary documents to support habitualization, we reverse and remand.
“It is the State’s responsibility to prove that the defendant qualifies for sentencing as a habitual felony offender.” Rivera v. State, 825 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Application of the habitual felony offender statute requires the State to provide the court with: “(1) the date of the current felony offense, (2) the date of the conviction for the last prior felony, and (3) the date that the defendant was released from prison imposed for the last felony conviction.” Lowenthal v. State, 699 So. 2d 319, 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (citing Reynolds v. State, 674 So. 2d 180, 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)).
Here, defense counsel objected during the sentencing proceeding and advised the trial court that the State was required to produce certified copies of all judgments and sentences. Although the record before the trial court contained proof of the initial qualifying conviction, it did not contain a certified copy of the conviction for the second felony offense. The State concedes that it did not produce the necessary documents to support a habitual felony offender sentence.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to sentence Wallace within the sentencing guidelines. See Reynolds; Rivera.
Reversed and remanded.
NORTHCUTT and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Ransom Louis Collins, 985 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 2008)…bitual felony offender sentence was presented in the trial court at sentencing, this court has not afforded the State a second opportunity on remand to demonstrate that the defendant meets the habitual felony offender criteria. See Wallace v. State, 835 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Rivera v. State, 825 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Reynolds v. State, 674 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Accordingly, we remand for resentencing under the Criminal Punishment Code. Collins v. State, 893 So. 2d 592, 594 (Fla. 2d…
-
Ransom Louis Collins v. State, 893 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…tual felony offender sentence was presented in the trial court at ’sentencing, this court has not afforded the State a second opportunity on remand to demonstrate that the defendant meets the habitual felony offender criteria.2 See Wallace v. State, 835 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Rivera v. State, 825 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Reynolds v. State, 674 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).3 Accordingly, we remand for resentencing under the Criminal Punishment Code. We acknowledge that the position we have adop…
-
Walker v. State, 988 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…ng hearing, on remand Mr. Walker must be sentenced within the guidelines. See Walker, 964 So. 2d at 886-87; see also Collins v. State, 893 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), review granted, State v. Collins, 929 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.2006); Wallace v. State, 835 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Rivera v. State, 825 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Reynolds v. State, 674 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). As we did in both Walker and Collins, we certify that our decision is in direct conflict with the decisions in Wilson v. St…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Calvin's Heavy Equip., Inc. v. Kirkland, 699 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Reynolds v. State, 674 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Lovell Williams, Jr. v. State, 821 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Rivera v. State, 825 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)