Barber v. State
207 So. 3d 379
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Marcus Leon Barber was convicted of felony child neglect, high-speed fleeing/eluding, and driving with a suspended license; originally sentenced to prison then probation.
- Barber twice violated probation (traveling without permission and a DUI), had probation reinstated and extended, then later committed a new law violation leading to revocation.
- At revocation the trial court revoked probation and imposed concurrent prison terms (5 and 10 years); the court identified Barber as a "violent felony offender of special concern" but made no written findings whether he was a danger to the community as required by section 948.06(8)(e), Fla. Stat. (2015).
- Barber moved under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b) (motion to correct sentencing error) seeking striking of the designation, vacatur of the prison sentence, and reinstatement of probation because the court failed to make the statutorily required written dangerousness findings.
- The State conceded the designation qualification but argued the absence of written findings was immaterial because the sentence was legally permissible whether or not Barber was found dangerous.
- The trial court acknowledged written findings were necessary but did not supply them; the appellate court was asked to decide the proper remedy for statutory noncompliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Barber) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s failure to make written dangerousness findings under § 948.06(8)(e) requires striking the VFO-SC designation | Written findings are required; noncompliance requires striking the designation | Designation under §§ 948.06(8)(b)-(d) is separate and need not be stricken because defendant still qualifies | Court rejected striking the underlying designation; designation under (b)-(d) remains intact |
| Whether lack of written findings mandates vacatur of the prison sentence and reinstatement of probation | Failure to make required written findings requires vacating sentence and reinstating probation | Sentence is legal with or without findings because trial court could impose any original permissible sentence upon revocation | Court held written findings are mandatory and reversed and remanded for a new sentencing hearing with written findings; it did not vacate designation or automatically reinstate probation |
| Whether the State’s failure to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses at the hearings conclusively proved Barber was not dangerous | Absence of rebuttal evidence and unrebutted testimony from Barber and his mother proves he is not dangerous | State bears burden but absence of cross-examination does not conclusively prove non-dangerousness; other statutory factors remain available | Court held State bears the burden but unrebutted testimony is not dispositive; remand for proper findings is required |
| Statutory interpretation: Is the written-finding requirement directory or mandatory? | (Implied) Written findings are mandatory and noncompliance is material | Written findings are not necessary where sentence is legally proper; the requirement is not mandatory in all cases | Court held the statute’s use of "shall" makes the written-finding requirement mandatory (not merely directory) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Martinez, 103 So.3d 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (discussing purpose of section 948.06 and pretrial detention under the Anti-Murder Act)
- Bailey v. State, 136 So.3d 617 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (addressing sufficiency of written findings under § 948.06(8)(e))
- DeGregorio v. Balkwill, 853 So.2d 371 (Fla. 2003) (interpretation that "shall" generally imposes a mandatory requirement)
- Unruh v. State, 669 So.2d 242 (Fla. 1996) (statutory interpretation principle: avoid readings that render statutory language meaningless)
- Alcantara v. State, 39 So.3d 535 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (placing burden on State to establish dangerousness under § 948.06(8)(e))
- Singh v. State, 135 So.3d 1136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (remedy of remand for written findings when § 948.06(8)(e) findings are missing)