LESTER JAMES MATHIS, 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.
The court affirmed Mathis's sentence on remand, finding no sentencing error despite the trial court's failure to resentence on all four counts, but remanded to correct the judgment to reflect that attempted second degree murder of a law enforcement officer is a first degree felony.
A trial court need not resentence a defendant on counts for which he was sentenced as a habitual offender, even when directed to resentence on all counts, because no scoresheet is required for habitual offender sentencing.
[1] A trial court need not resentence a defendant on counts for which the defendant was sentenced as a habitual offender when directed to resentence on all counts, because ha…
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 intelligenceMathis was convicted of four counts, including attempted second degree murder of a law enforcement officer. On initial appeal, the court reversed his …
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 Guidelines Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Lester James Mathis appeals his sentence imposed upon remand. He contends that the trial court failed to follow this court’s mandate in Mathis v. State, 693 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), when it failed to resentence him on all four of the counts of which he was convicted.
In Mathis, this court reversed only Mathis’s sentence for his conviction of attempted second degree murder of a law enforcement officer because it had been erroneously classified as a life felony rather than a first degree felony. However, this court directed at the conclusion of the opinion that Mathis be resentenced on all four counts based on a recalculated guidelines scoresheet. This direction overlooked the fact that Mathis was sentenced as a habitual offender for the other three counts and no scoresheet is required for habitual offender sentencing. Finding no sentencing error, we affirm. However, as the State concedes, Mathis’s judgment must be corrected to reflect that the offense of attempted second degree murder of a law enforcement officer is a felony of the first degree. Mathis need not be present. See Sinks v. State, 661 So. 2d 303 (Fla.1995).
Affirmed but remanded for correction of judgment.
PATTERSON, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Franco v. State, 777 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…ain reading of section 921.0014(2) authorizes the trial court to impose a life sentence if the defendant scores 363 or more points. Accordingly, the sentences imposed in this case did not constitute departure sentences. See also Stoltzfus v. State, 735 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). A departure sentence, which requires findings, is defined in section 921.0016(l)(c), which provides: A state prison sentence which varies upward or downward from the recommended guidelines prison sentence by more than 25 perce…
-
Shamond Byrd v. State, 841 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…nt. If the sentence points are 363 or more, the court may sentence the offender to life imprisonment without departure reasons. Willis v. State, 785 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Cash v. State, 779 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Stoltzfus v. State, 735 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Kalapp v. State, 729 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Affirmed.2 . The crime date was April 12, 1998. . As a procedural matter, the defendant’s claim is not cognizable on a motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule…
-
Black v. State, 76 So. 3d 1065 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…, and grand theft of a motor vehicle. We affirm Black’s convictions but remand for correction of his judgment to reflect that grand theft of a motor vehicle is a third-degree felony. Black need not be present for the correction. See Mathis v. State, 735 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Affirmed but remanded for correction of judgment. WALLACE and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Sinks v. State, 661 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1995)
- Mathis v. State, 693 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)