GLEN SMITH, 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 habitual offender sentence based solely on out-of-state convictions is illegal if the applicable statute does not authorize such enhancement.
Glen Smith was sentenced as a habitual offender based on two out-of-state felony convictions. The statute applied at the time was later invalidated, a…
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 Unlawful Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Glen Smith appeals the denial of his motion to correct sentence. We reverse.
Smith was sentenced as a habitual offender for offenses occurring in April, 1990. Section 775.084, Fla.Stat. (1989). He now alleges that the habitual offender enhancement was based solely on two out-of-state felony convictions. The 1989 habitual offender statute, which was applied to this case, permitted enhancement under these facts. However, this version of the statute was invalidated by the supreme court as having been enacted in violation of constitutional “single subject” provisions. State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1993). Accordingly, the habitual offender sentence is lawful only if authorized by the previous version of the statute, enacted in 1988. See Henderson v. Antonacci, 62 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1952).
We examined the 1988 statutory revisions in Rankin v. State, 620 So. 2d 1028, (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), and found no authority therein for habitual offender sentencing based on out-of-state convictions. Thus, if Smith’s factual assertions are true, his sentence is illegal. Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73, 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). It is immaterial that this sentence appears to have been the product of a plea agreement; one cannot negotiate or agree to an unlawful sentence. Williams v. State, 500 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1986).
After remand the trial court should reexamine the files and records in this case to determine whether anything therein conclusively demonstrates that Smith’s sentence does not violate our holding in Rankin. If so, the court may again deny the motion, attaching to its order whatever documentation it has relied upon. Otherwise, the sentence must be corrected to delete the habitual offender enhancement.
Reversed.
RYDER, A.C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 638 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…ntenced as a habitual felony offender. Smith claims that a prior felony used to enhance his sentence fell outside the time parameters of section 775.084(l)(a)2., Florida Statutes (1991). If true, he would be entitled to relief. See Smith v. State, 631 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The state filed a response that agreed with Smith’s claim as to this particular offense, but asserted, without supporting documentation, that Smith’s habitual offender sentence was based on two other felonies that did satisfy the…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993)
- Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Williams v. State, 500 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1986)
- Henderson v. Antonacci, 62 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1952)
- Rankin v. State, 620 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)