Narrative Opinion Summary
Ernest Proctor appeals his sentence for burglary of a conveyance and petit theft. The court affirms the ten-year sentence imposed as a habitual felony offender, concluding that the trial court met statutory requirements for such sentencing under the amended habitual offender statute effective after October 1, 1988, which removed the necessity to determine if habitual offender treatment was needed for public protection. However, the court reverses the imposition of court costs assessed against Proctor, as these costs were assigned without prior notice or consideration of his ability to pay, particularly after he was deemed indigent. This issue aligns with precedent set in Vamper v. State, which is currently under review by the Florida Supreme Court. The court certifies the cost assessment question as one of great public importance, resulting in a partial affirmation and reversal of the trial court's decisions.
Legal Issues Addressed
Certification of Legal Questions of Public Importancesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court certified the question of cost assessment as one of great public importance, acknowledging its potential impact on similar cases and alignment with precedent under review by the Florida Supreme Court.
Reasoning: This issue aligns with precedent set in Vamper v. State, which is currently under review by the Florida Supreme Court. The court certifies the cost assessment question as one of great public importance, resulting in a partial affirmation and reversal of the trial court's decisions.
Habitual Felony Offender Sentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the ten-year sentence for Ernest Proctor as a habitual felony offender, indicating the trial court adhered to the amended statute requirements that no longer necessitate determining if such treatment is needed for public protection.
Reasoning: The court affirms the ten-year sentence imposed as a habitual felony offender, concluding that the trial court met statutory requirements for such sentencing under the amended habitual offender statute effective after October 1, 1988, which removed the necessity to determine if habitual offender treatment was needed for public protection.
Imposition of Court Costssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reversed the imposition of court costs against Proctor, as they were assessed without prior notice or consideration of his indigent status, violating due process as highlighted in similar precedent cases.
Reasoning: However, the court reverses the imposition of court costs assessed against Proctor, as these costs were assigned without prior notice or consideration of his ability to pay, particularly after he was deemed indigent.