STAN ALFROD, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 the defendant's convictions are affirmed, but the sentence imposed was illegal and must be reversed and remanded for resentencing.
The defendant was convicted of robbery, burglary, and resisting an officer. The State sought habitual violent felony offender status, but the trial co…
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 Habitual Violent Felony Offender cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Stan Alfrod appeals his convictions and sentences for robbery, burglary, and resisting an officer without violence. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
We find no merit in defendant’s challenge to his robbery conviction. All convictions are affirmed.
We find error in the sentence and remand for resentencing. The State sought to have the defendant adjudicated a habitual violent felony offender. See § 775.084(1)(b), Fla.Stat. (1993). The trial court declined to impose a habitual violent felony offender adjudication, but instead found defendant to be a habitual felony offender. See § 775.084(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993). The trial court then imposed a sentence of ten years, with a mandatory minimum sentence of five years. In so doing, the trial court imposed an illegal sentence because the habitual offender statute contains mandatory minimum sentences for violent habitual felony offenders, but not habitual felony offenders. Compare § 775.084(4)(b), Fla.Stat. (1993), with § 775.084(4)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993). It is clear that the trial court sought to assure that the defendant would serve at least five years in prison, but the five year mandatory minimum cannot be imposed as part of paragraph 775.084(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1993). We therefore reverse the sentencing order and remand for resentencing to an appropriate and legal sentence. This matter is returned to the trial court for sentencing before a different trial judge, said sentences to be in accordance with applicable law.
Convictions affirmed; sentencing order reversed and remanded for resentencing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aburto v. State, 848 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…hree-year minimum mandatory sentence imposed by the court was illegal. The Reply appears to state a legally sufficient claim. See Wright v. State, 779 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Grant v. State, 650 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Alfrod v. State, 644 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). The trial court has not addressed this claim. To prevent Aburto’s claim from inadvertently being barred as successive, we write to affirm the denial of the initial motion but remand the case to the trial court with directions t…