MICHAEL DAVID ADAMS, 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.
Michael Adams appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing he received an illegal habitual offender sentence on drug possession counts. The court found this ground cognizable, reversed the trial court's denial, and remanded because the trial court failed to provide adequate documentation of its sentencing determination.
The court found that Adams stated a cognizable ground for his motion to correct illegal sentence regarding the habitual sentences on the possession counts. The court reversed the trial court's denial and remanded because the trial court failed to attach sentencing documents demonstrating whether he was actually sentenced as a habitual offender on the possession counts.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, is cognizable when a defendant claims to have received an illegal habitu…
[2] A habitual offender sentence is illegal for purposes of rule 3.800(a) if its terms exceed those authorized by statute or if a prior offense essential to the categorizatio…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced, and one of the two prior felony convictions, is not a violation of s. 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance”
This quote from section 775.084(1)(a)3 establishes that habitual offender sentencing is prohibited when the current or prior felony involves drug possession
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAdams was sentenced as a habitual offender on delivery of cocaine charges. However, the record indicated he may have also received habitual offender s…
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 Fla. Stat. § 775.084 Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Michael Adams appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We find cognizable one ground of that motion: that he received an illegal habitual sentence on one count of possession of cocaine and one count of possession of cannabis.1 The trial court’s order of denial explained that Appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender only on his delivery of cocaine charges. However, the trial court did not attach any portions of the record, such as sentencing documents, to support its denial. Therefore, we reverse on this ground only and remand for further proceedings. If the trial court again denies this ground of the motion, it should attach sentencing documents that show Appellant was not sentenced as a habitual offender on his possession counts.
We affirm as to Appellant’s other grounds, finding them to be without merit.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
KLEIN, STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur. . Section 775.084, Florida Statutes, the habitual offender statute, provides for sentencing under that statute if "[t]he felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced, and one of the two prior felony convictions, is not a violation of s. 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance ." § 775.084(l)(a)3, Fla. Stat. (1997). A habitual offender sentence is illegal for purposes of rule 3.800(a) only if its terms and conditions exceed those authorized by section 775.084 for the offense, or a prior offense essential to the categorization does not actually exist. See Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73, 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), rev. denied, 613 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1992). A claim that one has been habitualized on a drug possession charge, when the statute does not allow such sentencing, is cognizable on a rule 3.800(a) motion. See, e.g., Ellis v. State, 703 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Knight v. State, 882 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…s that he could not be sentenced as a habitual felony offender for the delivery of cocaine, was not successive to his prior claims. Nevertheless, the motion was properly denied because that claim was [*1082] without merit. See, e.g., Adams v. State, 724 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Paul v. State, 830 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Marrero v. State, 741 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Williams v. State, 667 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). WARNER, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Ellis v. State, 703 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)