JAMES D. BELL, 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.
Bell's convictions for armed robbery and probation violations were affirmed, but his habitual offender sentences for the probation violation offenses were vacated and remanded for resentencing on a non-habitual offender basis under Snead v. State.
A trial court errs in imposing habitual offender sentences for violations of probation, and such sentences must be vacated and imposed on a non-habitual offender basis.
[1] Habitual offender sentences cannot be imposed for violations of probation; such sentences must be vacated and resentencing conducted on a non-habitual offender basis.
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 intelligenceBell was convicted of armed robbery and violations of probation for strong armed robbery and grand theft, and was sentenced as a habitual offender to …
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 Strong Arm Robbery cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Bell appeals from sentences imposed following his conviction for armed robbery and his violations of probation for strong armed robbery and grand theft. Bell was sentenced as an habitual offender to twenty years imprisonment for all three offenses, to be served concurrently. On appeal, Bell argues that the trial court erred in imposing habitual offender sentences for his violations of probation under Snead v. State, 616 So. 2d 964 (Fla.1993). The state concedes error. We affirm Bell’s convictions. We affirm the sentence for armed robbery, but vacate the sentences for robbery and theft imposed after violations of probation. See, e.g., Crabtree v. State, 624 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (remanded for sentence to be corrected to show that it was for a first degree felony, rather than a life felony); Bray v. State, 586 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (although it did not affect sentence, cause was remanded for correction of scoresheet); Dussault v. State, 578 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 5th DCA), quashed on other grounds, 586 So. 2d 1060 (Fla.1991) (defendant was entitled to have record corrected to rectify erroneous imposition of fifteen years probation for third degree felony, for which the maximum period of incarceration was only five years, despite the imposition of concurrent fifteen year probationary terms for other offenses). On remand, Bell must be sentenced pursuant to the guidelines on a non-habitual offender status for these two offenses.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED for resentencing.
PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Snead v. State, 616 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 1993)
- Crabtree v. State, 624 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Dussault v. State, 578 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Rivera v. State, 586 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 1991)
- Fraga v. Swords, 586 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Atkinson v. CIGNA Healthplan OF S. Fla., Inc., 586 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)