MARK CORE, 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.
Mark Core appealed his conviction for attempted first-degree murder and robbery with a firearm. The court affirmed the conviction but partially reversed and remanded the sentencing, finding error in classifying Core as a habitual violent felony offender on the life felony count and in stacking mandatory minimum sentences.
The conviction for attempted first-degree murder and robbery with a firearm is affirmed. However, the sentencing is partially reversed: the habitual offender classification on the attempted first-degree murder charge (a life felony) must be deleted, and the stacking of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences must be vacated. The restitution order is affirmed.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in its rulings on challenges to potential jurors.
[2] A jury selection procedure, even if not the preferred method, may be upheld on appeal if it does not constitute reversible error.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“One convicted of a life felony is not subject to enhanced punishment as a habitual offender.”
Establishes the key legal principle that justified reversing the habitual offender classification on the attempted first-degree murder conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMark Core was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and robbery with a firearm. During trial, there were challenges to two jurors and testimony f…
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 Mistrial Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s conviction for attempted first degree murder and robbery with a firearm.
As to the challenges to two jurors, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court. Durocher v. State, 596 So. 2d 997 (Fla.1992). Nor was the procedure utilized for exercising jury challenges reversible, even though it is not the preferable way of selecting a jury. Appellant’s claim that the court erred in failing to grant a mistrial after a police officer testified that he obtained a picture of appellant from a police file also is not reversible error. See Moore v. State, 418 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). As to the jury note issue, we affirm based on Hildwin v. State, 531 So. 2d 124 (Fla.1988), and counsel’s acquiescence to the procedure used. Finally, any error in the state’s closing argument was harmless. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
On sentencing appellant claims that the trial court erred in considering an affidavit regarding appellant’s criminal history signed by the Bureau Chief of Admissions and Release Authority of the Department of Corrections. We find no reversible error, see Adams v. State, 521 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), and in any event, it would have been harmless as appellant has nowhere attacked the truthfulness of the affidavit. See generally Lewis v. State, 514 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA), dismissed, 518 So. 2d 1276 (Fla.1987).
We concur, however, that the court erred in sentencing appellant as a habitual violent felony offender on the charge of attempted first degree murder, which the state conceded. One convicted of a life felony is not subject to enhanced punishment as a habitual offender. See Lamont v. State, 610 So. 2d 435 (Fla.1992). We remand to the trial court to delete appellant’s habitual offender classification from count two, the life felony. See Newton v. State, 603 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In addition, the trial court on remand should vacate that part of its sentencing order which provides for the consecutive stacking of mandatory minimum sentences. See Daniels v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla.1992). We find no error in the imposition of restitution.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded with directions.
GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Lamont v. State, 610 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1992)
- Berlie Daniels, Jr. v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1992)
- Hildwin v. State, 531 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1988)
- Durocher v. State, 596 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1992)
- Moore v. State, 418 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Adams v. State, 521 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Burnup & Sims Telcom, Inc. v. Great Republic Ins. Co., 603 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Newton v. State, 603 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Lewis v. State, 514 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)