BOBBY RAY PERKINS, 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.
Bobby Ray Perkins appealed the denial of his motion to correct his habitual offender sentence, arguing his conviction was illegally enhanced. The court affirmed the sentence as legal, finding no statutory weapon enhancement applied, and remanded only to correct the judgment's designation of the offense.
The sentence is not illegal. Although the judgment of conviction incorrectly lists the crime as a life felony, no statutory weapon enhancement under section 775.087 was actually applied. A first degree felony punishable by life is subject to enhanced sentencing under the habitual felony offender statute, making Perkins' life sentence permissible.
[1] A judgment of conviction may be corrected to accurately reflect the felony classification of the underlying offense, even if the sentence imposed remains valid.
[2] A sentence imposed under the habitual felony offender statute is not illegal merely because the underlying offense is a first-degree felony punishable by life imprisonmen…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Since a first degree felony punishable by a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment is subject to an enhanced sentence of life imprisonment under the habitual felony offender statute; Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 267 (Fla.1992); appellant's sentence is not illegal.”
Establishes the legal standard for habitual offender enhancement and the basis for affirming Perkins' sentence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePerkins was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment. His judgment of conviction incorrectly listed…
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 Life Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced as an habitual offend er to life imprisonment. This court per cu-riam affirmed his direct appeal in which he challenged his habitual offender sentence as lacking the required factual findings. Perkins v. State, 587 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). It then per curiam affirmed the denial of his rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief where he claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the departure sentence as being without written reasons. Perkins v. State, 626 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
Appellant then filed a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct judgment and sentence in the trial court, claiming his habitual offender sentence was illegal because it was impermissible to sentence him as an habitual offender where his judgment of conviction reflects that his conviction for second degree murder was enhanced to a life felony because of use of a weapon. This appeal is from the trial court’s denial of that motion.
We conclude that while appellant’s judgment of conviction incorrectly lists his crime as a life felony, the record reveals no enhancement pursuant to section 775.087, Florida Statutes (1989), for use of a weapon as appellant claims. The state correctly points out that there was no reference to section 775.087 in the charging document which charges appellant with beating the victim with a pipe; there was no finding in the verdict form that a crime was committed with a weapon; the sentencing guidelines scoresheet designates and scores the offense as a first degree felony punishable by life; and there was no reference to the enhancement section at the time of sentencing as shown by the sentencing transcript.
Since a first degree felony punishable by a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment is subject to an enhanced sentence of life imprisonment under the habitual felony offender statute; Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1992); appellant’s sentence is not illegal. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order but remand for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment of conviction to reflect that the offense of second degree murder is a first degree felony punishable by life.
DELL, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Matias Valle v. State, 756 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. We affirm in all respects except we remand to correct the judgment of conviction bo reflect that the offense of sexual battery is a second degree felony. See, e.g., Perkins v. State, 648 So. 2d 316, 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). AFFIRMED and REMANDED. GUNTHER, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1992)