Sambito v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sambito v. State

782 So. 2d 1012, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 5546, 2001 WL 417681

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 25, 2001

DocketNo. 4D98-3950

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 782 So. 2d 1012 (Sambito v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sambito v. State, 782 So. 2d 1012, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 5546, 2001 WL 417681 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s appeal of his habitual felony offender sentence. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) does not require findings beyond a reasonable doubt of the fact of a prior conviction. 120 S.Ct. at 2362-63. Appellant argues that Ap-prendi applies to finding necessity for ha-bitualization under section 775.084, Florida Statutes. The statute, however, does not require such a finding. It only requires a finding if the court concludes that habitual-ization is unnecessary where the other requirements of the statute are met. § 775.084(3)(a)6. That finding was not made here, and in any event would not be a fact which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi, 120 S.Ct. at 2362-63 (distinguishing between facts in aggravation of punishment and facts in mitigation of punishment). Affirmed.

DELL, STONE and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s appeal of his habitual felony offender sentence. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) does not require findings beyond a reasonable doubt of the fact of a prior conviction. 120 S.Ct. at 2362-63. Appellant argues that Ap-prendi applies to finding necessity for ha-bitualization under section 775.084, Florida Statutes. The statute, however, does not require such a finding. It only requires a finding if the court concludes that habitual-ization is unnecessary where the other requirements of the statute are met. § 775.084(3)(a)6. That finding was not made here, and in any event would not be a fact which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi, 120 S.Ct. at 2362-63 (distinguishing between facts in aggravation of punishment and facts in mitigation of punishment). Affirmed.

DELL, STONE and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

782 So. 2d 1012, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 5546, 2001 WL 417681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sambito-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack