GREGORY J. TRIGG, 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.
The court held that the habitual offender sentence imposed upon probation violation was permissible and not an illegal departure from sentencing guidelines or an illegal increase in sentence.
Appellant challenged his habitual offender sentence entered upon a second violation of probation, raising three issues regarding the legality of the s…
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 Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.
The appellant, Gregory J. Trigg, challenges his habitual offender sentence entered upon a second violation of probation. He raises three issues for review, all of which have been previously decided in other cases before this or another district court. We affirm.
The appellant first argues that the trial court illegally departed from the sentencing guidelines by imposing a guidelines sentence of incarceration consecutive to a habitual offender sentence. This issue has been decided adversely to the appellant’s position by this court in Boomer v. State, 596 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); see also Ricardo v. State, 608 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In Boomer, we acknowledged conflict with Wood v. State, 593 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), and the Florida Supreme Court has accepted jurisdiction in Boomer v. State, 604 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1992).
The appellant next argues that the trial court, upon revocation of his probation, illegally increased the habitual offender sentence previously imposed. The sentence imposed by the trial court upon revocation is permissible under Hicks v. State, 595 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Finally, the appellant argues that the imposition of probation, after he had been classified as a habitual offender, constituted an illegal sentence. This argument has previously been rejected by this court in King v. State, 597 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. den., 602 So. 2d 942 (Fla.1992). We acknowledge conflict with State v. Kendrick, 596 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND, J., and STOUTAMIRE, R. GRABLE, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trigg v. State, 630 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1994)…PER CURIAM. We accepted jurisdiction of Trigg v. State, 614 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), based upon a conflict of decisions. These conflicts have now been resolved by opinions of this Court which are consistent with the opinion below. Therefore, the petition for review is discharged. It is so ordered. BARKETT, C.…
Authorities Cited
- King v. State, 597 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Ricardo v. State, 608 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- State v. Kendrick, 596 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Wood v. State, 593 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Boomer v. State, 596 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Hicks v. State, 595 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)