CURTIS GAGGER, 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.
Defendant's appeal of habitual offender sentencing for drug offenses is affirmed because the statutory exclusion for drug offenses was not effective until after the crimes were committed.
A defendant cannot benefit from a statutory exclusion to habitual offender sentencing that was enacted after the underlying offenses were committed.
[1] A statutory exclusion from habitual offender sentencing applies only to offenses committed after the exclusion's effective date, not to offenses committed before enactmen…
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 intelligenceCurtis Gagger was sentenced as a habitual offender to seven years for sale and possession of cocaine in one case, concurrent with three and one-half y…
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 Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, Chief Judge.
Defendant, Curtis Gagger, appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.800 motion to correct sentence. On November 15, 1993, defendant was sentenced as a habitual offender to seven years incarceration in Case No. 93-302 for sale of cocaine and possession of cocaine, concurrent with three and one-haif years incarceration for possession of cocaine in Case No. 93-242. Defendant claims that he was improperly sentenced as a habitual felony offender since his convictions were for drug offenses excluded from the operation of the habitual offender statute. Section 775.084(l)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1993), does not permit habitualization when both the felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced and one of the two prior felony convictions is a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes, relating to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance.
The lower court entered a cogent order explaining that the effective date of section 775.084(l)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1993), was June 17, 1993. See Ch. 93-406, §§ 2, 44, Laws of Fla. The underlying offenses were committed in Case No. 93-242 on January 28, 1993, and in Case No. 93-302 on December 16, 1992. The statute in effect at the time defendant committed his crimes is controlling, and such statute did not contain the exclusion provision. See Bond v. State, 675 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 684 So. 2d 1350 (Fla.1996).
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rollins v. State, 707 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…fender if both the felony for which, the defendant is to be sentenced and one of the two prior predicate felony convictions involves a violation of section 893.13 relating to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance. See Gagger v. State, 699 So. 2d 347, 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Hayes v. State, 677 So. 2d 304, 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). In this case, Rollins was convicted of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and not a violation of section 893.13. He had two prior felony convictions, one of whi…
-
Oliver v. State, 734 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…to sell or deliver on June 17, 1993. If this representation is true, appellant would be entitled to have the habitual offender sentences for those two offenses set aside, and to be resentenced pursuant to the guidelines. See, e.g., Gagger v. State, 699 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (whether a defendant may be sentenced as an habitual offender for possession of cocaine depends upon the version of section 775.084 in effect when the offenses were committed). Accordingly, appellant’s claim is legally sufficient…
-
Johnson v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…pp. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; J. Kevin Abdoney, Judge. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Johnson v. State, 242 So. 3d 354 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (table decision); Moore v. State, 748 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Gagger v. State, 699 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). SILBERMAN, LUCAS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bond v. State, 675 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)