TIMOTHY LEATY, 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.
Timothy Leaty appeals his convictions and sentences for burglary with assault and two counts of sexual battery. The court affirmed all convictions but reversed and remanded the sentences for the sexual battery convictions, finding that life felonies are not subject to enhancement under the habitual violent felony offender statute.
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence for burglary with assault, as burglary with assault is a first degree felony punishable by life and is subject to H.V.F.O. enhancement. However, the court reversed the sentences for sexual battery convictions because sexual battery is a life felony, which is not enumerated as a sentence subject to enhancement under the H.V.F.O. statute.
[1] The habitual violent felony offender statute is applicable to a first-degree felony punishable by life.
[2] A life felony is not subject to enhancement under the habitual violent felony offender statute's provision for a fifteen-year minimum mandatory term.
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“A life felony is not enumerated as a sentence that should be enhanced by a fifteen-year minimum mandatory term in the H.V.F.O. provision of section 775.084(4)(b)(l).”
Establishes the core legal principle that life felonies cannot be enhanced under the H.V.F.O. statute
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Timothy Leaty was convicted of one count of burglary with assault and two counts of sexual battery. The trial judge designated him as a habi…
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 Minimum Mandatory Term cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant, Timothy Leaty, appeals his convictions and sentences for one count of burglary with assault and two counts of sexual battery. The public defender representing appellant has filed an Anders brief and appellant has exercised his right to file a pro se brief. Appellant pro se urges only sentencing errors. We find no error in appellant’s three convictions and, therefore, affirm those convictions. We do find error, however, in the sentences imposed on appellant’s two convictions for sexual battery, and reverse those sentences and remand for resentencing as indicated herein.
Appellant was properly found to be an habitual violent felony offender (H.V.F.O.) pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1988). Although appellant relies upon Gholston v. State, 589 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), to argue that the trial judge improperly utilized the H.V.F.O. statute to sentence appellant for the burglary with assault conviction to a life sentence with a fifteen-year minimum mandatory term, burglary with assault is a first degree felony punishable by life (§ 810.02(2), Fla.Stat. (1989)), and this court has held in Lock v. State, 582 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), that the H.V.F.O. statute is applicable to a first degree felony punishable by life. We reaffirm Lock and certify our conflict with Gholston.
We reach a different result in regard to appellant’s two convictions for sexual battery for which the trial judge, pursuant to the H.V.F.O. statute, similarly imposed life sentences with fifteen-year minimum mandatory terms, both of which were to run consecutive to each other and to the sentence for burglary with assault. Sexual battery is categorized as a life felony. § 794.011(3), Fla.Stat. (1989). A life felony is not enumerated as a sentence that should be enhanced by a fifteen-year minimum mandatory term in the H.V.F.O. pro vision of section 775.084(4)(b)(l). We have previously held, and again affirm, that a life felony is not subject to enhancement under the H.V.F.O. statute. McKinney v. State, 585 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). See also Walker v. State, 580 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
We, therefore, affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence for burglary with assault. We also affirm appellant’s convictions for both counts of sexual battery, but we reverse the sentences imposed therefor and remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pelham v. State, 595 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…er for the conviction of sexual battery with a deadly weapon which is a life felony. § 794.011(3), Fla.Stat. (1989). Because life felonies are not subject to habitual offender enhancement, Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1992); Leaty v. State, 590 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Lock v. State, 582 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), it was error to check the “habitual offender” box on the sentence form. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the trial court for correction of this scrivener’s error. See Power v.…
-
Pelham v. State, 595 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…er for the conviction of sexual battery with a deadly weapon which is a life felony. § 794.011(3), Fla.Stat. (1989). Because life felonies are not subject to habitual offender enhancement, Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1992); Leaty v. State, 590 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Lock v. State, 582 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), it was error to check the “habitual offender” box on the sentence form. Ac [*582] cordingly, the case is remanded to the trial court for correction of this scrivener’s error. See…
Authorities Cited
- Walker v. State, 580 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Gholston v. State, 589 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- McKINNEY v. State, 585 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Jernigan v. State, 582 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Lock v. State, 582 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)