KEITH B. JONES, APPELLANT,
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 convictions entered on the same date cannot be used to classify a defendant as an habitual offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes.
Appellant pled guilty to possession of cocaine and was classified as an habitual offender, receiving a ten-year sentence based on prior convictions al…
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 Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Keith B. Jones, challenges the ten year sentence he received after he pled guilty to possession of cocaine and was classified as an habitual offender. We agree that the trial court erred by sentencing appellant as an habitual offender. We, accordingly, affirm the conviction but reverse and remand for resentencing.
The appellant was charged with possession of cocaine with the intent to deliver. He pled guilty to a reduced charge of simple possession. The trial court found that appellant was an habitual offender and imposed a ten year sentence. The prior convictions relied upon by the trial court to classify appellant as an habitual offender were all rendered on the same date.
In order to be sentenced as an habitual offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes as amended in 1988, a defendant must have had successive felony convictions. Convictions that are entered on the same date are treated as a single offense. Walker v. State, 567 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
Since all of appellant’s prior convictions were rendered on the same date, they should have been treated as a single offense, the trial court, therefore, erred by finding the appellant was an habitual offender. Walker. The fact that the appellant entered a plea agreement and did not object at the sentencing hearing does not prevent him from raising this issue on appeal. Fore hand v. State, 537 So. 2d 103 (Fla.1989) (sentencing errors that are apparent on the face of the record are recognizable on appeal even though there was no objection below). Griner v. State, 524 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (one may not agree to an unlawful sentence).
Reversed and remanded for resentencing.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and RYDER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 573 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…tion may not be based on another conviction entered on the same date. The fact that the appellant entered into a plea agreement and did not object at the sentencing hearing does not prevent him from raising this issue on appeal. See Jones v. State, 572 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (citing Griner v. State, 524 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), for the proposition that one may not agree to an unlawful sentence). We reverse the appellant’s habitual violent felony offender sentence and remand for resentencing on…
Authorities Cited
- Romerio Latee Walker v. State, 567 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Forehand v. State, 537 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1989)
- Griner v. State, 524 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)