DAVID JAMES SIX
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A sentencing judge's mere exposure to improper information about uncharged conduct does not require reversal unless there is evidence the sentence was actually based on that impermissible factor.
[1] A sentencing judge's exposure to improper information regarding uncharged conduct does not warrant reversal of sentence absent evidence that the court actually based its…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Trial judges are routinely made aware of information which may not be properly considered in determining a cause. Our judicial system is dependent upon the ability of trial judges to disregard improper information and to adhere to the requirements of the law in deciding a case or in imposing a sentence.”
Harvard v. State, 414 So. 2d 1032, 1034 (Fla. 1982)
David James Six appealed his conviction and sentence from the Circuit Court for Osceola County. The appeal involved a challenge to the sentencing base…
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 Impermissible Sentencing Factors cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2024-2781 Lower Tribunal No. 2022-CF-003707 _____________________________
DAVID JAMES SIX, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County. Tanya Davis Wilson, Judge.
February 6, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Harvard v. State, 414 So. 2d 1032, 1034 (Fla. 1982) (“[T]rial judges are routinely made aware of information which may not be properly considered in determining a cause. Our judicial system is dependent upon the ability of trial judges to disregard improper information and to adhere to the requirements of the law in deciding a case or in imposing a sentence.”); Wyrich v. State, 370 So. 3d 1000, 1004 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) (“However, the mere fact that a sentencing judge hears improper information related to uncharged conduct during a sentencing
2
hearing does not necessarily warrant reversal.” (citing Serrano v. State, 279 So. 3d 296, 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (“[T]here must be some indication that the court based its sentence on an impermissible factor before this Court will reverse.”)). TRAVER, C.J., and MIZE and KAMOUTSAS, JJ., concur.
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Susan M. Shanahan, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Daniel Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.