PATRICK PAIGE AND ANTHONY COKLEY, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that life sentences for first-degree felonies, such as kidnapping, can be enhanced under the habitual offender statute.
Appellants were convicted of kidnapping and robbery, adjudicated habitual offenders, and sentenced to life imprisonment for kidnapping and concurrent …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Habitual Offender Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
Patrick Paige and Anthony Cokley appeal their judgments and sentences entered after a jury found them guilty of kidnapping and robbery. We affirm.
The trial court adjudicated the appellants guilty of kidnapping and robbery, found both of them to be habitual offenders, and sentenced each to life imprisonment on the kidnapping charges and thirty years concurrent on the robbery. The appellants claim that, because life sentences are not subject to habitual offender enhancement, the trial court erred in indicating on the sentencing forms for the kidnapping convictions that they were habitual offenders. Section 787.01(2), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that “[a] person who kidnaps a person is guilty of a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.-084.” Section 775.084(4)(a)(l) requires that a habitual felony offender receive a sen tence of life after being found guilty of a felony in the first degree. Since kidnapping is a first-degree felony, appellants’ sentences therefor can be enhanced pursuant to section 775.084.
We recognize that the opinion in Power v. State, 568 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), indicated that life sentences are not subject to habitual offender enhancement, but that case involved an offense that was a life felony. The opinion is correct since there is no enhancement prescribed in section 775.084(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), for a life felony. The charge in the instant case was not classified as a life felony by the legislature; it was classified as a first-degree felony punishable by a term of years not exceeding life.
We find no merit in the other issues on appeal.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1992)…t to enhancement under the habitual offender statute.9 See Lock v. State, 582 So. 2d 819, 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Newton v. State, 581 So. 2d 212, 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Westbrook v. State, 574 So. 2d 1187, 1188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Paige v. State, 570 So. 2d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). We also hold that sentencing under sections 775.084(4)(a)(l) and 775.084(4)(b)(l) is permissive, not mandatory. As a result, because the State argued that a life sentence is mandatory under section 775.-084(4)(a)(l), and…
-
Lamont v. State, 597 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…lso White v. State, 589 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (holding that trial court could not sentence defendant as habitual violent felony offender because defendant’s second-degree murder conviction was reclassified to a life felony); Paige v. State, 570 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (noting in dictum that the habitual offender statute is inapplicable to life felonies). However, each of these decisions appear to have focused exclusively on subsections (4)(a) and (4)(b) — the portions of the statute which incr…
-
Hayes v. State, 598 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…1991), approved, 595 So. 2d 50 (Fla.1992); Newton; Tucker v. State, 576 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), approved, 595 So. 2d 956 (Fla.1992); Westbrook v. State, 574 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), approved, 595 So. 2d 50 (Fla.1992); Paige v. State, 570 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) and Young v. State, 600 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The application of the habitual offender statute to the armed robbery charge was proper but the application of the statute was not proper as to the armed kidnapping charge. S…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Power v. State, 568 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)