Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

686 So. 2d 1356

Docket No. 87269.

Dunham v. State

Robert DUNHAM, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided January 23, 1997.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1997-01-23

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently July 2002

5 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“In Walker , as in the instant case, the defendant was determined to be a habitual offender but as part of a plea bargain was not sentenced as such. Instead, he was sentenced to five years in prison followed by five years' probation, a sentence well below the sentencing guidelines, with the understanding that in the event of a subsequent probation violation he could be sentenced as a habitual offender. Thereafter, when he violated his probation, he was sentenced as a habitual offender. In Walker , we relied upon our prior decision in King v. State, 681 So.2d 1136 (Fla.1996), in which we approved such a hybrid sentencing arrangement if the defendant had agreed to it at the time of his original sentencing.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 808 So. 2d 1249 - Terry v. State

Relies on 681 So. 2d 1136 - King v. State · 610 So. 2d 594 - Burrell v. State · 682 So. 2d 555 - Walker v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-01-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Tatjana Ostapoff, Assistant Public Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, for Petitioner.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Chief, West Palm Beach Bureau, West Palm Beach, for Respondent.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4We review Dunham v. State,683 So.2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), which conflicts with Burrell v. State,610 So.2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution.

¶5The conflict in this case has now been resolved by this Court's recent decision in Walker v. State,682 So.2d 555 (Fla.1996). In Walker, as in the instant case, the defendant was determined to be a habitual offender but as part of a plea bargain was not sentenced as such. Instead, he was sentenced to five years in prison followed by five years' probation, a sentence well below the sentencing guidelines, with the understanding that in the event of a subsequent probation violation he could be sentenced as a habitual offender. Thereafter, when he violated his probation, he was sentenced as a habitual offender.

¶6In Walker, we relied upon our prior decision in King v. State,681 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 1996), in which we approved such a hybrid sentencing arrangement if the defendant had agreed to it at the time of his original sentencing. Therefore, we approve the decision of the court below, and disapprove Burrell to the extent that it conflicts with this opinion.

¶7It is so ordered.

¶8OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

/686/so2d/1356 · .json · Public domain