JAMES LEE ANTHONY, 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.
Anthony appeals his convictions for sexual battery with a deadly weapon, robbery with a deadly weapon, and aggravated assault. The court affirms the convictions but remands to correct the sentence for sexual battery because the habitual violent felony offender enhancement cannot apply to life felonies.
The habitual violent felony offender enhancement cannot apply to life felonies under Florida law. The restitution order was proper because Anthony's counsel did not object to the restitution amount on the record.
[1] A trial court errs in sentencing a defendant as a habitual violent felony offender for a life felony offense when the habitual offender statute does not provide for enhan…
[2] A defendant waives the right to challenge the amount of restitution ordered when their counsel affirmatively states on the record that the defendant does not object to th…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“since sexual battery with a deadly weapon is a life felony and the habitual offender statute makes no provision for the enhancement of life felonies, the trial court erred in sentencing him as a habitual offender for that offense”
Establishes the core holding that habitual violent felony offender enhancements cannot apply to life felonies
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnthony was convicted by jury of sexual battery with a deadly weapon, robbery with a deadly weapon, and aggravated assault. The trial court found him …
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
PATTERSON, Judge.
James Lee Anthony appeals from the judgment and sentences imposed upon him after a jury convicted him of sexual battery with a deadly weapon, robbery with a deadly weapon, and aggravated assault. We affirm the appellant’s convictions but remand for correction of the sentence for sexual battery with a deadly weapon.
At sentencing, the trial court found the appellant to be a habitual violent felony offender under section 775.084(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1989). The court sentenced the appellant to two concurrent terms of life with a mandatory minimum of fifteen years pursuant to the enhancement provision for first degree felonies, section 775.-084(4)(a)(l), Florida Statutes (1989), for the sexual battery with a deadly weapon and the robbery with a deadly weapon. The court also sentenced the appellant to a term of ten years for the aggravated assault pursuant to section 775.084(4)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (1989), and ordered the appellant to pay restitution in the amount of $2,599.28.
The appellant argues since sexual battery with a deadly weapon is a life felony and the habitual offender statute makes no provision for the enhancement of life felonies, the trial court erred in sentencing him as a habitual offender for that offense. We agree and strike the portion of the sentence for sexual battery which imposes the mandatory minimum of fifteen years and designates that the appellant has been sentenced as a habitual violent offender for that count. See Johnson v. State, 568 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Ledesma v. State, 528 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
The appellant also argues because the state failed to prove the amount of damage to the victim, the trial court erred in ordering him to pay restitution. This argument has no merit. The appellant’s counsel stated on the record that the appellant did not object to the imposition of restitution in the amount suggested by the state. Thus, the state did not have the burden to prove the amount of damage.
Accordingly, we affirm the appellant’s judgment and sentences but remand for correction of the sentence for sexual battery with a deadly weapon. The appellant need not be present for the correction of sentence.
PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. State, 623 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…erved at the trial level. At the sentencing hearing, Moore and his attorney only objected to the restitution for the tools. Since they did not object to the restitution or the amount for the victim’s truck, the objection is waived, Anthony v. State, 585 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), and proeedurally barred. Brooks v. State, 605 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Bayer v. State, 597 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Moore’s other claims are without merit. SENTENCE AFFIRMED; RESTITUTION REVERSED. HARRIS, C.J., an…
-
State v. Southpointe Pharmacy, 636 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., and we are without jurisdiction to decide the merits in such cases on appeal.1 A civil action arising under the “[cjopyright law is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal district courts. See ... Pincus v. Carlisle, 585 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Garrido v. Burger King Corp., 558 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).” Sparta Surf, Inc. v. Korda, 599 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Until January 1, 1978, state courts had jurisdiction to decide common law copyright claims which we…
-
Page v. McMULLAN, 849 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…miss was denied and that ruling is challenged through the instant petition for writ of prohibition. We have jurisdiction. Department of Revenue v. Eastern American Technologies Corp., 762 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); see also Pincus v. Carlisle, 585 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (granting prohibition where trial court lacked jurisdiction over one count of multi-count complaint). Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(c) permits the “relation back” of an amended pleading when the claim “arose out of the c…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Easter v. State, 568 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Doral Beach Hotel & Prof'l Administrators v. Sanchez, 528 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)