JAMES LEE MARTIN, 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.
Martin's conviction is affirmed, but his habitual felony offender sentence is reversed because the prior convictions were not sequential as required by Florida Statutes Section 775.084(1)(a)1, and the case is remanded for resentencing.
A habitual felony offender sentence under Florida Statutes Section 775.084(1)(a)1 requires that each felony be committed after conviction for the immediately previous offense.
[1] A habitual felony offender sentence under Florida Statutes Section 775.084(1)(a)1 requires that each felony be committed after conviction for the immediately previous off…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartin was convicted of a felony and sentenced as a habitual felony offender based on prior convictions that were not sequential in nature.…
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 Sequential Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Appellant’s conviction is affirmed. Because, however, the habitual felony offender sentence imposed under Section 775.-084(l)(a)l, Florida Statutes (1989), is not supported by sequential convictions, appellant’s sentence is reversed and the case remanded for resentencing. Fuller v. State, 578 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), petition for review filed, No. 77,907 (Fla. May 10,1991); Razz v. State, 576 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), petition for review filed, No. 77,761 (Fla. Apr. 16, 1991). Accord Barnes v. State, 576 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), petition for review filed, No. 77,751 (Fla. Apr. 17, 1991). In accordance with the above case law, we certify the following question to the supreme court as one of great public importance:
WHETHER SECTION 775.084(l)(a)l, FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), WHICH DEFINES HABITUAL FELONY OFFENDERS AS THOSE WHO HAVE “PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY COMBINATION OF TWO OR MORE FELONIES IN THE STATE OR OTHER QUALIFIED OFFENSES,” REQUIRES THAT EACH OF THE FELONIES BE COMMITTED AFTER CONVICTION FOR THE IMMEDIATE PREVIOUS OFFENSE?
We affirm on the second issue appellant raised without comment.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for resentencing.
SMITH and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Martin, 595 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1992)…OVERTON, Judge. We quash the decision of the district court in Martin v. State, 583 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), on the authority of State v. Barnes, 595 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1992),1 and remand for further proceedings consistent with our decision in Barnes. It is so ordered. SHAW, C.J., and McDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ.,…
-
Martin v. State, 596 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…tual felony offender, because the two predicate offenses had been entered on the same date, and (2) that the trial court erred by sentencing him in excess of the plea agreement without affording him a chance to withdraw his plea. In Martin v. State, 583 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), we reversed the first issue and certified the question to the supreme court and affirmed the second issue without comment. The supreme court has now quashed our decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with State…
Authorities Cited
- Barnes v. State, 576 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Fuller v. State, 578 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Razz v. State, 576 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)