LEOTIS M. SMITH, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida Supreme Court quashed the Fifth District's affirmance of Smith's habitual offender life sentence, holding that two predicate convictions entered on the same day and one occurring after the offense violated statutory requirements for habitualization and constituted fundamental sentencing error reviewable on direct appeal.
Two predicate felony convictions entered on the same day and a third conviction occurring after the offense being sentenced constitute fundamental sentencing error in habitual offender sentencing under Florida law.
[1] Under Florida law, prior felony convictions must be sentenced separately from each other and prior to the offense being enhanced, and violation of these requirements cons…
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 intelligenceSmith received a life sentence as a habitual offender for second-degree murder with a deadly weapon based on three prior felony convictions, two of wh…
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 Direct Appeal Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Smith v. State, 721 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), a decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal citing as authority its opinion in Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), approved in part, disapproved in part, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 8(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981).
Smith received a life sentence as a habitual offender for second-degree murder with a deadly weapon. Smith claims that his prior felony convictions were an insufficient predicate for habitualization because two of the convictions were entered on the same day and the third occurred after the date of the offense. See § 775.084(5), Fla. Stat. (1995) (providing that to be a “prior felony” for the purpose of habitualization, the offense must “have resulted in a conviction sentenced separately prior to the current offense and sentenced separately from any other felony conviction that is to be counted as a prior felony”); Rhodes v. State, 704 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (stating that in order to constitute a prior offense for purposes of habitualization, the offense must have been committed prior to the offense resulting in the enhanced sentence). For the reasons expressed in our opinion in Maddox, we find that this constitutes a fundamental sentencing error that can be raised on direct appeal during the window period discussed in Maddox. We therefore quash the decision below and remand for further proceedings in light of Maddox.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2008)…ss. For example, we have recognized the following as “sentencing errors” subject to the rule: claims that the defendant was improperly habitualized, see Brannon, 850 So. 2d at 454; that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum, see Terry v. State, 764 So. 2d 571, 572 (Fla.2000); that the scoresheet was inaccurate, see State v. Anderson, 905 So. 2d 111, 118 (Fla.2005); that the trial court improperly imposed a departure sentence, see Thogode v. State, 763 So. 2d 281, 281 (Fla.2000); that the written order de…
-
Harrell v. State, 773 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…the alleged date of the offense of felon in possession of a firearm, February [*1188] 12, 1997. If Harrell’s assertions concerning the dates of his offenses are accurate, he should not have been sentenced as a habitual offender. See Smith v. State, 764 So. 2d 571 (Fla.2000); Smith v. State, 742 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). On remand, the trial court must examine the court file to determine if Harrell’s allegations are correct. If they are, Harrell must be resentenced in accord with the applicable sentenc…
-
Markens v. State, 793 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…to have relied on the number of convictions and did not discuss whether the convictions were sequential. Section 775.084(5), Florida Statutes (1993), requires sequential convictions to qualify for habitual offender sentencing. See Smith v. State, 764 So. 2d 571 (Fla.2000). This requirement became effective June 17, 1993. Therefore, since the offenses in cases 97-2600 and 97-6997 appear to have been committed after June 17, 1993, sequential convictions would be required for habitual offender sentencing. O…
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
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Rhodes v. State, 704 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- B.K. v. State, 721 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Leotis Smith v. State, 721 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)