TERRANCE MAURICE GARRISON, 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.
Terrance Maurice Garrison appealed his sentences for robbery with a firearm and aggravated assault with a firearm, challenging the trial court's findings that he was an habitual violent offender and an habitual offender, and the imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences. The appellate court reversed and remanded for resentencing due to conflicting documentation regarding the habitual offender findings.
The court rejected the first issue as previously resolved against the appellant in Burdick v. State, finding that armed robbery as a first-degree felony is subject to habitual offender treatment. On the second issue, the court could not resolve the conflicting documentation between oral pronouncement and written orders regarding the habitual offender findings, requiring reversal and remand for resentencing. The court did not reach the third issue regarding consecutive sentences due to the necessity for resentencing.
[1] A first-degree felony punishable by life is subject to habitual offender treatment.
[2] A defendant cannot be sentenced as a habitual offender based on prior convictions entered on the same day.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“This court has resolved the issue adverse to the appellant in Burdick v. State, 584 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).”
Court rejected appellant's argument that first-degree armed robbery is not subject to habitual offender treatment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGarrison was convicted of one count of robbery with a firearm and one count of aggravated assault with a firearm. The trial court imposed sentences ba…
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 Violent Felony Offender cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Terrance Maurice Garrison appeals his sentences for one count of robbery with a firearm and one count of aggravated assault with a firearm alleging three errors committed by the trial court in the imposition of sentence. Appellant contends the lower court erred in finding him to be an habitual violent offender on the armed robbery charge. He contends the lower court erred in finding him to be an habitual offender on the aggravated assault charge. Finally, he contends the lower court erred in imposing consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for the same crime.
As to the first issue, appellant argues that armed robbery is a first degree felony punishable by life and therefore is not subject to habitual offender treatment. We disagree. This court has resolved the issue adverse to the appellant in Burdick v. State, 584 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
As to the second issue, the appellant contends both convictions relied upon for habitual offender sentencing on the aggravated assault were entered on the same day and thus cannot constitute the requisite two prior convictions for habitual offender treatment. The court’s oral pronouncement at the sentencing hearing apparently found appellant to be an habitual violent felony offender, but the transcript and record are not clear. The written habitual offender order finds defendant to be both a habitual offender and a habitual violent felony offender. The judgment and sentence, however, impose only habitual offender sentencing on the robbery count, and make no habitual offender finding (violent felony or otherwise) as to the assault. Given the existence of this three-way conflict between the oral pronouncements and written documentation, the only solution is reversal and remand for resentencing. Although the court’s oral pronouncement would normally be controlling, the sentencing hearing transcript does not contain a clear indication of the court’s intent. In resentencing the appellant, the court’s attention is directed to the recent decision in Barnes v. State, 576 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), review pending, no. 77,551 (Fla.).
Because of the requirement for resentencing in this case, we do not reach the third issue raised by appellant.
REVERSED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.
JOANOS, C.J., and SMITH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garrison v. State, 654 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…PER CURIAM. Terrance Garrison’s original sentences for armed robbery and aggravated assault were reversed, and the case was remanded for resentencing. Garrison v. State, 584 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). On appeal from the initial resentencing, the sentences were again reversed and the case was again remanded for resentencing. Garrison v. State, 607 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), aff’d sub nom. State v. Garrison, 616 So. 2d 993…
-
Garrison v. State, 607 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…curred in April 1990. He was tried and convicted by jury, and sentenced as an habitual violent felony offender. This court reversed Garrison’s sentence based on inconsistencies in the record as to the exact nature of his sentence, Garrison v. State, 584 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and he was re-sentenced in February 1992. At re-sentencing, the state again sought habitual violent felony offender classification, relying as before on two prior convictions of aggravated battery, and possession of cocaine. Gar…
Authorities Cited
- Barnes v. State, 576 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Pearson & Maluso, M.D., P.A. v. Bott, 584 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)