DWIGHT TISDALE, 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.
A defendant cannot receive a habitual offender sentence for drug possession convictions, even if the imposed sentence falls within the recommended guidelines range.
Dwight Tisdale was convicted of sale and possession of cocaine and adjudicated a habitual felony offender for both. The habitual offender statute expr…
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 Drug Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Dwight Tisdale was convicted of sale and possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1995). We affirm appellant’s convictions but reverse his sentence on the possession charge because drug possession convictions are not subject to habitual offender sentencing.
Tisdale was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment for sale of cocaine and 5 years’ imprisonment for cocaine possession. He was adjudicated a habitual felony offender on both offenses. Section 775.084(l)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1995), expressly provides that purchase and possession of controlled substances are felonies not subject to habitual offender sentencing. See Belton v. State, 673 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)(a defendant can not receive a habitual offender sentence for possession of cocaine).
Appellant’s scoresheet indicates that the recommended guidelines sentence for this offense was 4jé — 5/é years. Thus, while the trial court erred by adjudicating appellant a habitual felony offender as to the possession charge, the court actually imposed a sentence well within the recommended guidelines range. We therefore remand the case with directions to remove the habitual offender designation from the trial court’s sentencing order on count II, possession of cocaine. Appellant’s sentence is affirmed in all other respects.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and LAZZARA and QUINCE, JJ., concur.