Narrative Opinion Summary
Jerry Bunion appealed his habitual offender sentence for sexual battery. The trial judge based the habitual offender designation on an assumption that Bunion had been released from incarceration within five years prior to the current offense, as outlined in Florida Statute 775.084(1)(b)(2). While this assumption might be correct, the judge was found to have erred by imposing the habitual offender sentence on an insufficient record. Citing precedents (Frazier v. State and Davis v. State), the appellate court reversed the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, allowing the state another opportunity to justify habitual offender status. Judges Parker and Lazzara concurred with the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Review of Sentencing Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: An appellate court may reverse and remand a sentence if it finds that the lower court imposed the sentence based on an insufficient record, permitting the state another opportunity to justify the sentencing.
Reasoning: Citing precedents (Frazier v. State and Davis v. State), the appellate court reversed the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, allowing the state another opportunity to justify habitual offender status.
Habitual Offender Sentencing under Florida Statute 775.084subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court must have a sufficient record to impose a habitual offender sentence, and assumptions without evidence do not meet this requirement.
Reasoning: The trial judge based the habitual offender designation on an assumption that Bunion had been released from incarceration within five years prior to the current offense, as outlined in Florida Statute 775.084(1)(b)(2).
Sufficiency of Evidence for Habitual Offender Statussubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A sentence under habitual offender status requires adequate proof; without it, the designation is subject to reversal and remand for resentencing.
Reasoning: The judge was found to have erred by imposing the habitual offender sentence on an insufficient record.