THADIUS LEE GREGORY, 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.
Appellant's habitual offender conviction affirmed, but remand required to correct sentencing documents to reflect concurrent sentences as orally pronounced.
Subsequent convictions may be considered in determining habitual offender status, and sentencing documents must be corrected to reflect the trial court's oral pronouncement of concurrent sentences.
[1] Subsequent convictions may be considered in determining whether a defendant qualifies as a habitual offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGregory was sentenced as a habitual offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes, and the trial court relied on convictions entered after the conv…
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 Offender Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
The appellant challenges the judgment and sentences imposed on him under the habitual offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988). He argues that the trial court erred in relying on convictions entered after the convictions for which he was being sentenced to establish his habitual offender status. We find no merit in this argument since this court has approved the consideration of subsequent convictions in determining whether a defendant is a habitual offender. Smith v. State, 584 So. 2d 1107 (Fla.2d DCA 1991), review denied, 595 So. 2d 557 (Fla.1992); but cf., Palmore v. State, 584 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (convictions entered after date offenses at sentencing occurred could not be relied on as prior convictions).
The appellant also argues that the written judgment and sentences fail to reflect the court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing that the sentences in this case are to run concurrently with an eleven-year sentence he is presently serving. We agree. Accordingly, we affirm the appellant’s judgment and sentences, but remand for correction of the sentencing documents to reflect that the sentences are concurrent.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
HALL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 584 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Palmore v. State, 584 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)