WILLIE B. HARRIS, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Habitual Felony Offender cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
Harris challenges his convictions and sentences for armed robbery and resisting an officer without violence. We affirm the convictions in all respects, but remand for resentencing.
At sentencing the trial court denied the state’s motion to sentence Harris as an habitual felony offender and instead sentenced Harris within the permitted range of the guidelines. On cross-appeal, the state correctly argues that the trial court erred in holding that a first degree felony punishable by a term of years not exceeding life is not subject to enhancement pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989). “[A] first degree felony, no matter what the punishment imposed by the substantive law that condemns the particular criminal conduct involved, is still a first degree felony and subject to enhancement by Section 775.084(4)(a)(l), Florida Statutes.” Burdick v. State, 584 So. 2d 1035, 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); see also Lock v. State, 582 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Paige v. State, 570 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
We therefore affirm the convictions but remand for resentencing.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Franke v. State, 997 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…s view they are life felonies, they were not subject to habitualization. As just noted, the two offenses are first-degree felonies punishable by life. A first-degree felony is subject to habitualization. § 775.084(4)(a)(l); see also Harris v. State, 593 So. 2d 301, 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (noting that a “first degree felony, no matter what the punishment imposed by the substantive law that condemns the particular criminal conduct involved, is still a first degree felony and subject to enhancement by Section 77…
-
Harris v. State, 624 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…he question of whether habitualization was properly refused. This court affirmed the convictions, held that first degree felonies punishable by life were subject to habitualization, and reversed and remanded for resentencing. [*280] Harris v. State, 593 So. 2d 301 (Fla.2d DCA 1992). At the hearing on remand Harris argued that once he had begun to serve a legal sentence, resentencing him to a more severe sanction offends North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). The trial co…
-
Smith v. State, 599 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…one could justify an upward departure, the supreme court in Barfield v. State, 594 So. 2d 259 (Fla.1992) has since made clear that temporal proximity alone is insufficient in the absence of an escalating pattern of conduct. See also Walker v. State, 593 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (following Barfield). The state argues that departure was warranted because defendant’s crimes establish an escalating pattern of conduct. We do not agree because the record does not sufficiently disclose any indication of escala…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pearson & Maluso, M.D., P.A. v. Bott, 584 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Paige v. State, 570 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Jernigan v. State, 582 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Lock v. State, 582 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)