JERMAINE CRAWFORD, 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.
Jermaine Crawford appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, arguing that changes in Florida law regarding habitual offender sentencing should apply retroactively to vacate his sentences. The court affirmed the denial regarding one legal change but reversed and remanded regarding another, allowing the trial court to reconsider whether to impose minimum mandatory sentences within its discretion.
The court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief regarding the Burdick claim because Crawford was time-barred from attacking his sentences on that ground, as his motion was filed more than two years after the significant change in law was announced. The court reversed and remanded regarding the Hudson claim because it was timely filed and the record did not indicate whether the sentencing court believed it could decline to impose minimum mandatory terms.
[1] A motion for post-conviction relief is time-barred if filed more than two years after a significant change in law is announced.
[2] Sentencing under the habitual offender statute is permissive, not mandatory.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“sentencing under the habitual offender statute is permissive, not mandatory”
Establishes the holding in Burdick v. State regarding the nature of habitual offender sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn November 8, 1990, Crawford was convicted of robbery and burglary with assault. The trial court adjudicated him a habitual violent felony offender a…
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 Permissive Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jermaine Crawford appeals from the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part.
On November 8, 1990, Crawford was convicted of robbery and burglary with assault. The trial court adjudicated Crawford a habitual violent felony offender and sentenced him on each count to thirty years imprisonment to run concurrently, with a ten year minimum mandatory term on count I and a fifteen year minimum mandatory term on count II. In his motion for post-conviction relief, Crawford argues that there have been changes in law that have been held to apply retroactively, Adams v. State, 543 So. 2d 1244, 1246 (Fla.1989), and that his sentences must be vacated.
First, Crawford argues that the trial court at sentencing did not have the benefit of Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267, 271 (Fla.1992), wherein the Florida Supreme Court held that sentencing under the habitual offender statute is permissive, not mandatory. Although the State concedes that this is true, the State argues, and we agree, that Crawford is time barred from attacking his sentences on this ground because his motion for post-conviction relief was filed more than two years after the date that the significant change in law was announced. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850; Adams v. State, 543 So. 2d at 1247. Therefore, we affirm that portion of the trial court’s order denying post-conviction relief.
Next, in his motion for post-conviction relief, Crawford attacks his sentences because the trial court at sentencing did not have the benefit of State v. Hudson, 698 So. 2d 831, 833 (Fla.1997),1 wherein the Florida Supreme Court concluded that a trial court’s discretion to choose whether a defendant will be sentenced as a habitual offender also extends to determining whether to impose a minimum mandatory term. Because this portion of the motion for post-conviction relief was timely filed and because the record does not indicate whether the sentencing court believed it could in fact decline to impose minimum mandatory terms, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s order denying post-conviction relief and remand for the trial court to reconsider the minimum mandatory sentence as within its discretion. Hudson, 698 So. 2d at 833.
Affirmed, in part, reversed, in part, and remanded.
. The Florida Supreme Court has implicitly acknowledged that a claim under Hudson can be raised in a motion for post-conviction relief. Newell v. State, 714 So. 2d 434, 435 (Fla.1998).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
NEW v. State, 807 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2001)…PER CURIAM. We have for review the decision in New v. State, 765 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), which certified conflict with the decision in Crawford v. State, 735 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. FACTS Paul New pled guilty to three counts of robbery. On November 1, 1994, he was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender and the court imposed concurrent terms…1 / 2
-
Jones v. State, 760 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…permitted sentencing guidelines, it is not necessary to remand for resentencing because the defendant could have gotten the same sentence either way. We find this argument unconvincing. The case is more appropriately governed by Crawford v. State, 735 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), in which this Court allowed a defendant who was convicted in 1990 of robbery and burglary with assault to proceed with a 3.850 petition based on the 1997-decided Hudson, as the defendant filed his petition within two years from t…
-
NEW v. State, 765 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Anthony v. State, 762 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We certify conflict with Crawford v. State, 735 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). ALLEN, LAWRENCE, and BENTON, JJ., CONCUR.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Hudson, 698 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1997)
- In re Amendment TO Fla. Rules OF Jud. Administration-Rule 2.125(b)(1), 543 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 1989)
- Newell v. State, 714 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1998)