LEONARD CRAIG NELSON, 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.
Leonard Nelson appeals five sentencing orders imposing enhanced sentences based on habitual offender classification. The court affirms the habitual offender classification in one case but reverses and remands four cases where the classification was improper because prior felony convictions were not sequential.
The court held that Nelson was improperly classified as a habitual offender in four cases (89-2802, 89-2908, 89-3042, and 89-5544) because his prior felony convictions were not sequential. However, classification as a habitual offender in case 90-623 was appropriate based on the two prior sets of sequential judgments from July 20 and December 20, 1989.
[1] A statute defining habitual felony offenders as those previously convicted of two or more felonies does not require that each felony be committed after conviction for the…
[2] The plain meaning of a statute, where the legislature has unambiguously expressed its intent, must be followed, and a court cannot alter it.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“appellant was improperly classified as an habitual offender pursuant to section 775.084(l)(a)l, Florida Statutes, since no prior felonies were shown to precede the four felony convictions arising from those three cases, and those convictions and sentences were not sequential.”
Establishes the requirement that prior felony convictions must be sequential for habitual offender classification
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNelson was sentenced on five separate occasions in 1989 and 1990 for various felony violations and community control violations. In cases 89-2802, 89-…
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
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Appellant appeals five sentencing orders, which were entered on the same day, imposing sentences for violations of community control and for new crimes. We affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part for resentencing.
We find no merit in the arguments raised by appellant but, sua sponte, we note sentencing errors as to the habitual offender classification of appellant in four of the five judgments and sentences appealed. In case numbers 89-2802, 89-2908 and 89-3042, in all of which appellant was sentenced on July 20, 1989, appellant was improperly classified as an habitual offender pursuant to section 775.084(l)(a)l, Florida Statutes, since no prior felonies were shown to precede the four felony convictions arising from those three cases, and those convictions and sentences were not sequential. Barnes v. State, 576 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Similarly, at the December 20, 1989 sentencing in case number 89-5544, which resulted in two felony convictions for crimes committed on November 4, 1989, appellant was classified by the trial judge as an habitual offender based on the prior felony convictions in the three cases for which appellant was sentenced on July 20, 1989. Again, since the July 20, 1989 prior felony convictions were not sequential, they do not support classification of appellant as an habitual felony offender pursuant to 775.084. Barnes.
However, as to the four felony convictions in case number 90-623 for crimes committed on February 2, 1990, for which appellant was sentenced on May 22, 1990, classification of appellant as an habitual felony offender based on the two prior sets of judgments and sentences occurring on July 20, 1989 and December 20, 1989 was appropriate. Therefore, his classification as an habitual offender and the enhanced sentences imposed in case number 90-623 are affirmed. However, the enhanced sentences imposed pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes, in case numbers 89-2802, 89-2908, 89-3042 and 89-5544 are reversed and this cause is remanded for resentencing in those cases without classification of appellant as an habitual felony offender. As in Barnes, we certify the following question as one of great public importance:
WHETHER SECTION 775.084(l)(a)l, FLORIDA STATUTES, WHICH DEFINES HABITUAL FELONY OFFENDERS AS THOSE WHO HAVE “PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF TWO OR MORE FELONIES,” REQUIRES THAT EACH OF THE FELONIES BE COMMITTED AFTER CONVICTION FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PREVIOUS OFFENSE?
See also Razz v. State, 576 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
AFFIRMED in part, and REVERSED and REMANDED in part for resentencing.
ERVIN, J., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Barnes v. State, 576 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Razz v. State, 576 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)