KAREEM A. JOHNSON, 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.
Kareem Johnson appealed his convictions and habitual offender sentences in two consolidated cases. The court affirmed his convictions but reversed his habitual offender sentences because the State failed to timely serve written notice of intent to habitualize before he entered his pleas.
The State's failure to timely serve written notice of intent to habitualize prior to acceptance of the defendant's pleas violated the habitual felony offender statute and prevented the trial court from lawfully imposing habitual offender sentences. Verbal notice does not cure the failure to timely file written notice.
[1] A defendant must receive written notice of intent to habitualize a sufficient time prior to the entry of a plea or imposition of sentence to allow for preparation of a su…
[2] For a defendant to be habitualized following a guilty or nolo plea, the defendant must be given written notice of intent to habitualize and the court must confirm the def…
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 intelligence“in order for a defendant to be habitualized following a guilty or nolo plea, the following must take place prior to acceptance of the plea: 1) The defendant must be given written notice of intent to habitualize, and 2) the court must confirm that the defendant is personally aware of the possibility and reasonable consequences of habitualization.”
Establishes the two-part requirement for lawful habitualization under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson was convicted in two cases. The State verbally informed Johnson that it would seek sentencing as a habitual felony offender, but did not file …
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 Notice Of Intent To Habitualize cases and more on FLexlaw
Kareem Johnson, Appellant, challenges his convictions and sentences in two cases that we sua sponte consolidate for the purpose of this opinion. We affirm Appellant’s convictions without comment. However, we reverse Appellant’s habitual offender sentences imposed in both cases and remand for resentencing.
The habitual felony offender statute provides that a “(w]ritten notice (of intent to habitualize] shall be served on the defendant and the defendant’s attorney a sufficient time prior to the entry of a plea or prior to the imposition of sentence in order to allow the preparation of a submission on behalf of the defendant.” § 775.084(3)(a)2, Fla. Stat. (2010). In Ashley v. State, 614 So.2d 486, 490 (Fla.1993), the Florida Supreme Court held that “in order for a defendant to be habitualized following a guilty or nolo plea, the following must take place prior to acceptance of the plea: 1) The defendant must be given written notice of intent to habitualize, and 2) the court must confirm that the defendant is personally aware of the possibility and reasonable consequences of habitualization.”
Here, the record reflects that the State did not file the notices of intent to habitu-alize in both cases until almost two months after Appellant pled to the charges. While the record discloses that the State verbally informed Appellant that it would seek sentencing as an habitual felony offender, that fact does not cure the failure to timely file a written notice. See Stanford v. State, 69 So.3d 1039, 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding that the fact that the State verbally informed a defendant of its intent to habitualize does not cure the failure to timely file a written notice). By failing to *320give Appellant written notice of intent to habitualize prior to the trial court’s acceptance of his pleas, the State was not entitled to seek habitual offender status for Appellant. As such, the trial court erred in imposing habitual offender sentences. Accordingly, we reverse Appellant’s habitual offender sentences in both cases and remand the causes to the trial court for resentencing under the sentencing guidelines.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
LEWIS, CLARK, and RAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1993)
- Stanford v. State, 69 So. 3d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)