RICHARD O. WRIGHT, 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.
The court held that the record was insufficient to determine if an amendment to the habitual offender statute applied to the appellant's offense.
Appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender for possession with intent to sell. An amendment effective June 1993 altered the criteria for habitual …
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 Controlled Substance Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion. We affirm on all grounds except one, because the record is insufficient on that ground.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a habitual, offender for possession with intent to sell. Effective June 1993, section 775.084(l)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1993), was amended to allow enhanced sentencing as a habitual offender, so long as “[t]he felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced ... is not a violation of s. 898.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance.” § 775.084(l)(a)3.
Because the record does not reveal the date of appellant’s offense, we must reverse and remand for the trial court to determine whether the amendment applies to appellant. If the amendment is applicable, the habitual offender sentence would be improper because possession with intent to sell is a violation of section 893.13, which relates to the possession of a controlled substance. See § 775.084(l)(a)3; Grene v. State, — So. 2d -[1996 WL 252248], 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1145 (Fla. 3d DCA May 15, 1996); Williams v. State, 667 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Houser v. State, 666 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Palmer v. State, 664 So. 2d 1162(Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
STONE, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ellis v. State, 703 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…ay not receive an enhanced sentence under the habitual felony offender statute. Reversed, sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing. . See, e.g., Barber; Grene; Harris v. State, 695 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Baldwin; Wright v. State, 683 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Houser v. State, 666 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).…
Authorities Cited
- Houser v. State, 666 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Williams v. State, 667 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Palmer v. State, 664 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)