DARREN BARBER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 habitual felony offender statute does not permit enhanced sentencing for possession of cocaine with intent to sell, as it is a violation related to controlled substances.
Darren Barber was convicted of sale of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to sell. The trial court classified him as a habitual felony offe…
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 Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Darren Barber appeals his habitual felony offender classification and resultant enhanced sentence for possession of cocaine with intent to sell, arguing that Section 775.084(l)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1995), does not permit such classification for this crime. We agree.
In May 1996, Barber was charged with and convicted of the following offenses: (1) sale of cocaine and (2) possession of cocaine with intent to sell or distribute. The court below applied the habitual felony offender statute, Section 775.084(l)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1995), to both offenses and sentenced Barber to fifteen (15) years on each count, the sentences to run concurrently.
Barber argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a habitual offender for the conviction on possession of cocaine with the intent to sell. Section 775.084(l)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1995), does not permit enhanced sentencing as a habitual offender if the felony is “a violation of Section 893.13 relating to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance.” Here, Barber’s conviction of possession of cocaine with intent to sell is a violation of Section 893.13 and so falls within this prohibition. We find, and the State concedes, that the habitual felony offender classification and resultant enhanced sentence the trial court imposed on Barber was improper as it concerns the possession conviction. Grene v. State, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1145, — So. 2d -, 1996 WL 252248 (Fla. 3d DCA May 15, 1996); Perez v. State, 647 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).
Although the habitual felony offender statute was properly applied to the sale of cocaine charge, we vacate the sentences on both charges below and remand to the trial court for resentencing on the conviction of both charges.
Sentences below vacated; remanded to trial court for resentencing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ellis v. State, 703 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…cing statute specifically exempts from its application criminal defendants who are convicted of “a violation of s.893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance.” See § 775.084(l)(a)3, Fla. Stat. (1993); Barber v. State, 699 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Baldwin v. State, 684 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Grene v. State, 702 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)(modified on other grounds en banc, Sept. 3, 1997). In making its ruling below, the trial court had before it the Grene decisio…
-
Pittman v. State, 733 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…ecause “Section 775.084(l)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1995), does not permit enhanced sentencing as a habitual offender if the felony is ‘a violation of Section 893.13 relating to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance.’ ” Barber v. State, 699 So. 2d 325, 325-26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Accordingly, we reverse the defendant’s habitual offender sentence for the charge of possession of cocaine and remand with instructions to vacate that sentence and re-sentence the defendant on that count. Reversed and r…
Authorities Cited
- Perez v. State, 647 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)