CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed Williams's convictions for attempted armed robbery, aggravated assault, and resisting an officer, but remanded for resentencing because the trial court improperly imposed both enhanced penalties under section 775.0845 and habitual offender sentencing, violating Spicer v. State.
A trial court cannot impose both enhanced penalties under section 775.0845 and habitual offender sentencing for the same offense; upon resentencing, the court must choose one or the other.
[1] A trial court may not impose both enhanced penalties under section 775.0845 and habitual offender sentencing for the same offense; upon resentencing, the court must elect…
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 intelligenceChristopher Williams was convicted of attempted armed robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, and resisting an officer with violence. The trial cou…
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 Enhanced Penalties cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Christopher Williams appeals his convictions and sentences for attempted armed robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, and resisting an officer with violence. We affirm the convictions, but remand for resentencing because of several errors which the state has conceded.
The defendant claims that the sentences for the attempted robbery and aggravated assault charges were erroneous because the court enhanced the penalty for each of these charges, based on the defendant’s use of a mask during the crimes, and the court also sentenced the defendant as a habitual offender. The state concedes that the sentencing was in violation of Spicer v. State, 615 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), and that the cause should be remanded for resentencing on those counts. Under Spicer, upon resentencing the court may either sentence the defendant pursuant to the enhanced penalty provisions of section 775.0845, Florida Statutes (1993), and the sentencing guidelines or sentence the defendant as a habitual offender, but the court may not do both. See also Archibald v. State, 646 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
The state further agrees that the written sentence for Count 4, imposing a sentence of thirty years, must be corrected to conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement of ten years on that count.
The defendant’s convictions are affirmed, but the sentences are reversed and the cause is remanded for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.
PARKER, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 124 So. 3d 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…s an HFO. All sentences were run concurrent, resulting in an overall sentence of forty-five years. We affirmed Williams’ convictions but reversed his sentences due to improper multiple enhancements and an oral-written discrepancy. Williams v. State, 658 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The resentencing court reduced four of the five sentences, retaining the HFO enhancement on all but the conviction for resisting with violence: attempted robbery, thirty years; aggravated assault, ten years each; resisting with v…
-
Mauro S. Solone v. State, 686 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…use the enhanced penalty provisions of the statute and impose a guidelines sentence not exceeding thirty years or use the second-degree felony conviction to impose a habitual offender sentence not exceeding thirty years. See also Williams v. State, 658 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (relying on Spicer for same sentencing proposition). Accordingly, based on the indistinguishable holding in Spicer, we vacate appellant’s sentences and remand for resentencing in conformity with that decision.2 Affirmed in part,…
-
Williams v. State, 848 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…have considered the illegal sentence claims on their merits and affirm the denial of these claims. We discuss only his claim regarding credit for time served. Mr. Williams was resentenced in this ease pursuant to our mandate in Williams v. State, 658 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In ground eighteen of his motion, he alleged that the trial court did not properly award him credit for the “time served on sentence prior to resentencing.” Mr. Williams failed to specify whether he was seeking prison and/or jail…
Authorities Cited
- Spicer v. State, 615 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Archibald v. State, 646 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)