Bateman v. State, 566 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
Bateman v. State, 566 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“ection 775.084(4)(e), florida statutes, effective october 1988, ... removes habitual offender sentences from the sentencing guidelines.”
7 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Matthews (fla, 2004-12-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Matthews
Fla. · 2004 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
ection 775.084(4)(e), florida statutes, effective october 1988, ... removes habitual offender sentences from the sentencing guidelines.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pender v. State
Fla. · 1997 · confidence medium
The State further maintains that the trial court's finding was correct because the State never introduced the colposcope photograph at trial and the defendants knew of the existence of the photo prior to trial and specifically requested it in Dr. Tokarski's subpoena. [3] Finally, the State asserts that as the court did in Bateman v. State, 566 So.2d 358, 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), this Court should find that the record *667 in the instant case reveals that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that no discovery violation occurred and, consequently, that a Richardson hearing was…
discussed Cited "see" State v. Collins
Fla. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bateman v. State, 566 So.2d 358, 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (recognizing that the amendment to section 775.084 superseded Whitehead and "a habitual offender sentence in excess of the guidelines, even *992 in the absence of stated reasons for departure, is now valid"); Owens v. State, 560 So.2d 1260, 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (recognizing that Whitehead was decided before section 775.084 was amended so that once the defendant meets the definition of a habitual felony offender, the trial court is no longer required to provide written reasons for imposing a sentence in excess of the guidelines).
cited Cited "see" Ingram v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bateman v. State, 566 So.2d 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
cited Cited "see" Floyd v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bateman v. State, 566 So.2d 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Studnicka v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence medium
As stated in State v. Kendrick, 596 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA), review dismissed 613 So.2d 5 (Fla.1992), "the legislature amended the habitual offender statute to make habitual offender sentencing independent of the sentencing guidelines." Id. at 1154 (citation omitted); see also Bateman v. State, 566 So.2d 358, 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Larry BATEMAN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
89-1080.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Sep 5, 1990.
566 So. 2d 358
Stone.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

[*359] Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Robert Friedman, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Richard E. Doran, Tallahassee, for appellee.

STONE, Judge.

We affirm appellant's conviction for sale of cocaine, and his sentence as a habitual offender. Appellant first asserts that the trial court erred by conducting an inadequate hearing on his disclosure that the state had not furnished a copy of a photograph to the defense. The photograph showed a woman standing near the defendant at the time of the sale to an undercover officer. Appellant argues that this constitutes a discovery violation and deprived him of due process. See Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla. 1971); Raffone v. State, 483 So.2d 761 (Fla. 4th DCA), dismissed, 491 So.2d 281 (1986). See also Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

However, the record reflects no intention or attempt by the state to introduce or use the photograph. Further, the defendant knew pictures were taken, knew the identity of the woman, and never requested copies of the photographs. The state's discovery response did advise the defense that there were photographs. There is no contention of willful misconduct by the state and there is no indication that the content of the picture was exculpatory. The hearing conducted was adequate, and the record reveals no abuse of discretion.

Appellant also asserts that his sentence as a habitual offender is an invalid departure from the guidelines. See Winters v. State, 522 So.2d 816 (Fla. 1988); Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla. 1986). However, a habitual offender sentence in excess of the guidelines, even in the absence of stated reasons for departure, is now valid. The amendment to section 775.084(4)(e), Florida Statutes, effective October 1988, supersedes Whitehead v. State. This statute removes habitual offender sentences from the sentencing guidelines. See Owens v. State, 560 So.2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); State v. Davis, 559 So.2d 1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); King v. State, 557 So.2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 564 So.2d 1086 (1990). Therefore, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.

ANSTEAD and GARRETT, JJ., concur.