GEORGE SAMUELS, 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.
George Samuels appeals a trial court order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence imposing habitual violent felony offender enhancement following a probation violation. The court reversed, finding that the enhancement was illegal because the original sentences were not imposed under the habitual violent felony offender statute.
The court held that Samuels' habitual violent felony offender sentences were illegal because his original sentences were not enhanced under the habitual violent felony offender statute and he was not found to be a habitual violent felony offender at the time of original sentencing.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a), Fla. …
[2] Habitual violent felony offender sentencing imposed upon a probation violation is illegal if the defendant was not previously found to be a habitual violent felony offend…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Appellant's habitual violent felony offender sentences for violation of probation were illegal because his original sentences were not enhanced under the habitual violent felony offender statute, and he was not found to be a habitual violent felony offender.”
The core holding establishing why the sentencing enhancement was illegal
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSamuels pled guilty to burglary of a dwelling with battery and strong arm robbery and received three years of probation. He subsequently violated prob…
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 Habitual Violent Felony Offender cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by George Samuels from a trial court order which denied his motion to correct illegal sentence challenging his habitual felony offender sentencing following his violation of probation. We reverse and remand for re-sentencing.
Appellant pled guilty to burglary of a dwelling with a battery and strong arm robbery, and was sentenced to three years of probation. He later violated that probation. The state, for the first time, moved to declare him a habitual violent felony offender for enhanced sentencing purposes. The trial court granted the motion and sentenced Appellant to life in prison for the burglary, with battery and to 30 years in prison for the robbery.
Appellant did not file a direct appeal, but did file several prior collateral proceedings, including a habeas corpus petition in which he included among his claims an argument that his habitual violent felony offender sentencing for violation of probation was illegal and in violation of double jeopardy. This court denied habeas corpus relief without prejudice to petitioner’s right to raise any appropriate claims for relief in a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence.
Next appellant filed a motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Fla. R.Crim.P. in which he alleged that his habitual violent felony offender sentencing was illegal because it increased the sentences originally imposed after he had commenced serving them, in violation of double jeopardy. He raised additional challenges, which we deem to be without merit and, thus, will not address herein.
Rule 3.800(a) is available for the sentencing challenge Appellant makes in this case. See Blakley v. State, 746 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), and Austin v. State, 756 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Appellant’s habitual violent felony offender sentences for violation of probation were illegal because his original sentences were not enhanced under the habitual violent felony offender statute, and he was not found to be a habitual violent felony offender. See Snead v. State, 616 So. 2d 964 (Fla.1993); Moore v. State, 616 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 624 So. 2d 268 (Fla.1993); Scott v. State, 550 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), rev. dismissed, 560 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1990).
For the reasons above, Appellant’s sentences for revocation of probation are reversed and remanded for re-sentencing.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GUNTHER, STONE, and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pankhurst v. State, 796 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…[*619] FULMER, Judge. Albert F. Pankhurst challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). ' We have jurisdiction. See Samuels v. State, 757 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). We reverse. In July 1990, Pankhurst pleaded guilty to dealing in stolen property (count one) and third-degree grand theft (count two). He was sentenced to two years’ concurrent probation on each count. The trial court announced…
-
Crotts v. State, 795 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…preme court decided King, that decision has been applied retroactively in postconviction proceedings. See House v. State, 696 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Such a sentencing error is also cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding. Samuels v. State, 757 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). ■ If Crotts’s allegations prove true, he will be entitled to be resentenced in conformity with the sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of his offense and within the statutory maximum. If the trial court again denies Cro…
-
Berthole Eugene v. State, 876 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…on of appellant’s probation was improper. We agree that the sentence should be reversed because appellant’s original probationary sentence was not a habitual offender sentence. See Snead v. State, 616 So. 2d 964, 965-66 (Fla.1993); Samuels v. State, 757 So. 2d 1273, 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing. WARNER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Blakley v. State, 746 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Snead v. State, 616 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 1993)
- Dudley Scott v. State, 550 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Austin v. State, 756 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Moore v. State, 616 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)