MICHAEL A. STOCKER, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's dismissal of a postconviction 3.850 motion and remanded for the trial court to address whether the appellant qualified for habitual offender sentencing and to correct the felony degree for attempted armed robbery from first-degree to second-degree.
The appellate court held that the appellant could raise these claims in the 3.850 motion despite not raising them on direct appeal, that the motion properly raised the habitual offender issue, and that attempted armed robbery with a firearm constitutes a second-degree felony, not first-degree. The court therefore remanded for the trial court to attach record evidence of predicate convictions and amend the judgment accordingly.
[1] A claim that a defendant did not qualify for habitual offender sentencing may be raised in a motion for postconviction relief even if it could have been raised on direct…
[2] A challenge to an illegal sentence may be brought at any time.
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“Appellant's failure to raise these claims on direct appeal did not prevent him from doing so in the instant 3.850 motion. See Debose v. State, 580 So.2d 638, 640 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (although contention that defendant did not qualify as a habitual offender could have been raised on direct appeal, defendant could raise this claim in a subsequent 3.850 proceeding, because the rule expressly provides that a motion to vacate a sentence which exceeds the limits provided by law may be filed at any time).”
Establishes that habitual offender challenges can be raised in postconviction motions even if not raised on direct appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Stocker was convicted and sentenced as a habitual offender. The trial court summarily denied his postconviction motion for relief under Florid…
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 Predicate Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from an order denying as legally insufficient appellant’s motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We found that two of appellant’s myriad claims would, if true, afford appellant relief. Consequently, we entered an order requiring the State to respond to the following issues:
Whether the trial court erred in summarily rejecting appellant’s claim that he did not qualify for habitual offender sentencing, in that he had not previously been convicted of any combination of two or more felonies in this state or other qualifying offenses.
Whether the trial court erred in adjudicating appellant guilty of a first-degree felony for the crime of attempted robbery with a firearm.
The State, in its answer brief, contends: (1) that appellant’s failure to raise these issues on direct appeal precluded him from doing so by motion for postconviction relief; (2) that appellant’s motion did not raise the habitual offender issue; and (3) that, in any event, the record on appellant’s direct appeal indicates that appellant was properly sentenced as a habitual offender. The State correctly agrees as to the second issue, that attempted armed robbery with a firearm is a second-degree felony. See §§ 777.04(4)(b) and 812.13(2), Fla.Stat. Appellant’s failure to raise these claims on direct appeal did not prevent him from doing so in the instant 3.850 motion. See Debose v. State, 580 So. 2d 638, 640 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (although contention that defendant did not qualify as a habitual offender could have been raised on direct appeal, defendant could raise this claim in a subsequent 3.850 proceeding, because the rule expressly provides that a motion to vacate a sentence which exceeds the limits provided by law may be filed at any time). See also Ospina v. State, 579 So. 2d 810, 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (a challenge to an illegal sentence may be brought at any time). We reject the State’s contention that appellant’s motion did not raise the first issue.
We must, therefore, remand this case to the trial court to attach portions of the record indicating that appellant’s predicate convictions qualified him for habitual offender sentencing and to amend the judgment to reflect that appellant’s conviction for attempted armed robbery with a firearm is a second-degree felony. If appellant qualifies for habitual offender sentencing, the trial court need not resentence appellant. Hernandez v. State, 592 So. 2d 764, 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
JOANOS, C.J., and BOOTH and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- DeVITTO v. State, 580 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Ozell Debose, Jr. v. State, 580 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Ospina v. State, 579 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Hernandez v. State, 592 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)