EDDIE D. BLOUNT, 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 a claim regarding a three-year minimum sentence for vicarious firearm possession is cognizable in postconviction proceedings, but a claim regarding the validity of sentencing court reasons for departure should have been raised on direct appeal.
Eddie Blount appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct sentence, raising two issues: the validity of the sentencing court's reasons for dep…
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 Vicarious Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Eddie Blount appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct sentence. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Two issues are raised in the motion. The first — the validity of the sentencing court’s reasons given for departing from guidelines — should have been raised, if at all, on direct appeal. Wahl v. State, 460 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Thus the circuit court properly denied relief as to this claim.
The second claim is that Blount was improperly subjected to a three-year minimum sentence, pursuant to section 775.087(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), despite the fact his possession of a firearm was “vicarious” only. The circuit court found that this issue, similarly, is inappropriate for postconviction proceedings. However, this court has held otherwise. Poiteer v. State, 627 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Accordingly, after remand the circuit court should address this issue on its merits.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 633 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…otion for postconviction relief” on basis of Poiteer); Poiteer v. State, 627 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (rule 3.800 motion challenging imposition of minimum mandatory on basis that defendant did not possess gun during robberies); Blount v. State, 627 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (same); Scott v. State, 622 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (rule 3.800 motion alleging that minimum mandatory was illegal because state failed to show that robbery was committed with firearm and that factual basis existed to impose…
-
Pula v. State, 652 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…not be raised in a collateral attack on the sentence by using rule 3.850 or rule 3.800. Sanders v. State, 621 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 629 So. 2d 135 (Fla.1993). See also Gartrell v. State, 626 So. 2d 1364 (Fla.1993); Blount v. State, 627 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). AFFIRMED. HARRIS, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur.…
-
Insko v. State, 933 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…om the terms of an appellate mandate.” Mendelson v. Mendelson, 341 So. 2d 811, 813-14 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). A trial court may not alter or evade a district court’s mandate; instead, it must carry out the district court’s command. See Russell v. State, 627 So. 2d 576, 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). On Insko’s first appeal, the mandate from this court did not reverse and remand with a general instruction for further proceedings. On the contrary, our remand instruction was specific and unambiguous. We directed the trial…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Poiteer v. State, 627 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Wahl v. State, 460 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)