JAVIER APARRTO MOREJON, 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 convictions for aggravated assault and battery on prison guards were affirmed, but his habitualized sentences were vacated because crimes committed while imprisoned for over five years do not qualify for habitualization under Florida law.
A defendant imprisoned for more than five years cannot be habitualized for crimes committed while still in custody, despite meeting the statutory elements of the underlying offenses.
[1] A defendant who has been imprisoned for more than five years but remains in custody when committing a new crime cannot be habitualized under Florida Statutes section 775.…
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 intelligenceMorejon was convicted of aggravated assault and aggravated battery on prison guards while imprisoned. He had been incarcerated for more than five year…
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 Custody Status cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
From convictions and habitualized sentences for aggravated assault on a prison guard, and aggravated battery on another prison guard, violations of section 784.07, Florida Statutes (1989), the appellant presents three issues: (1) that the element of “putting in fear” to support a conviction of aggravated assault was not proven at trial, (2) that the element of “causing great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement or using a deadly weapon” to support the aggravated battery conviction was not proven at trial, and (3) that enhancing his sentences pursuant to section 775.-084(l)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (1989), was error. We find no merit in the arguments going to the convictions and affirm both convictions without further discussion. We do, however, agree that he was improperly habit-ualized for these crimes because they were committed while the appellant was in prison, where he had been for more than five years. Jeffries v. State, 610 So. 2d 440 (Fla.1992), holds that the strict language of section 775.-084 does not apply to anyone who has been in prison more than five years but who has not yet been released from custody when he commits a new crime.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions but vacate the habitualized sentences and remand for resentencing.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and HALL and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.