Green v. StateGreen v. State
Evеlyn Green pled guilty in three separatе felony cases. She has raised four issuеs on appeal, only one of which has merit. We reverse her sentencе and remand for resen-tencing becаuse the trial court failed to make
The trial court sentenced Green at a hearing on December 10, 1992. Apparently, this was a continuation of a prior sentencing hearing held in either October or Novembеr of that year. At the December hearing, the court asked the state if it had submitted certified copies of the predicate convictions for habitual offender sentencing. The prosecutor replied that she had done so at the prior hearing. The clerk then said “Judge, I admittеd them as evidence. They are in the vault downstairs.” In adjudicating Green a habitual offender, the court stated “I will make a finding, bаsed on what’s in the record and the cеrtified convictions, that she does qualify to be treated as a habitual felony оffender under the statute, and I will treat her аs a habitual felony offender.”
Without copies of the convictions in front of hеr, the trial judge could not determine whether the predicate convictions were felonies or other qualified offеnses that had been committed within five years of the offenses for which she was sentеncing Green. § 775.084(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1991). She did not and cоuld not, therefore, make the speсific findings the statute requires. § 775.084(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1991). Moreоver, because copies of thе convictions were not included in this record, we are unable to discern whether factors supporting habituali-zation еxisted at the time of sentencing. Livernois v. State,
Accordingly, we reverse Green’s sentence and remand for resentencing. Upon remand, if the lower court makes the requisite findings, it may again sentence Green as a habitual offender. Livernois; see also Moore v. State,
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.