JOHN EDWARD BUTCHEK, 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 reversed the trial court's denial of a Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging the legality of a mandatory minimum sentence for armed robbery, requiring the trial court to determine on remand whether the defendant actually possessed a firearm during the robbery.
A trial court must determine whether a defendant manually possessed a firearm during a robbery before imposing a three-year mandatory minimum sentence under Florida Statutes section 775.087(2).
[1] A trial court must determine whether a defendant manually possessed a firearm during a robbery before imposing a mandatory minimum sentence under Florida Statutes section…
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 intelligenceJohn Edward Butchek was convicted of robbery and sentenced to a three-year mandatory minimum sentence. He filed a Rule 3.800(a) motion denying that he…
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 Rule 3.800(A) Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
John Edward Butchek challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion he denies possessing a firearm during the robbery of which he was convicted, and argues that the three-year mandatory minimum sentence imposed is consequently illegal. . The trial court determined that the issue is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding, and denied the motion. We reverse.
Members of this court have not always agreed that this issue involves an illegal sentence.1 But the court has consistently required that trial courts determine whether section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes, has been properly invoked. Dye v. State, 667 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Poiteer v. State, 627 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The trial court, on remand, shall determine whether Butchek manually possessed a firearm during the robbery; if it can be ascertained that he did by referencing documents in the record these should be appended as attachments to a subsequent order denying the motion.
Appellant’s other challenges to his sentence are -without merit.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
RYDER, A.C.J., and FULMER and QUINCE, JJ., concur. . See Brown v. State, 633 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Poiteer v. State, 627 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Cueto v. State, 633 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Brown v. State, 633 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Trent DYE v. State, 667 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)