STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
TERRY MCKNIGHT, 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.
A habitual offender sentence for possession of cocaine is a fundamental error that can be corrected, even if the erroneous sentence is served concurrently with other sentences.
McKnight received a ten-year habitual offender sentence for possession of cocaine, which is statutorily prohibited and exceeds the maximum non-habitua…
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 Fundamental Error In Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review McKnight v. State, 759 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), a decision of the First District Court of Appeal certifying conflict with the decision of the Fifth District 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, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. McKnight received a ten-year habitual offender sentence for possession of cocaine. A habitual offender sentence for possession of cocaine is expressly prohibited by statute and the sentence imposed exceeds the maximum non-habitual offender sentence permitted for the offense. See McKnight, 759 So. 2d at 686. For the reasons expressed in our opinion in Maddox, we approve the decision of the First District that this constitutes fundamental error correctable during the window period discussed in Maddox.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., recused.
. See also Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114, 116 (Fla.2000) (rejecting State's argument that a fundamental sentencing error should remain uncorrected simply because the erroneous sentence is to be served concurrently with other sentences that are not being challenged).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perry v. State, 808 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…See Hooper v. State, 703 So. 2d 1143, 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). As to the sentencing issue, the state mistakenly concedes that, pursuant to the authority of McKnight v. State, 759 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), approved sub nom., State v. McKnight, 764 So. 2d 574 (Fla.2000); and Nelson v. State, 719 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), the trial court erred in classifying appellant as a habitual felony offender under section 775.084(l)(a)(3.), Florida Statutes (1997). It is ethically appropriate for the state to…
-
Seccia v. State, 786 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…te, 760 So. 2d 114, 116 n. 4 (Fla.2000) (rejecting the state’s argument “that Leonard ha[d] suffered no prejudice ... because [the challenged sentence was] to be served concurrently with other sentences that [we]re unchallenged”); State v. McKnight, 764 So. 2d 574, 574 n. 1 (Fla. 2000) (citing Leonard as “rejecting State’s argument that a fundamental sentencing error should remain uncorrected simply because the erroneous sentence is to be served concurrently with other sentences that are not being challenged”…
-
Woods v. State, 807 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…igible for a habitual felony offender sentence, regardless of the nature of the prior crimes used to establish the predicate for an enhanced sentence. See McKnight v. State, 759 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); decision approved by State v. McKnight, 764 So. 2d 574 (Fla.2000); Hayes v. State, 677 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). In contrast, a defendant who is convicted of any other crime would not be exempted by this part of the statute based on the nature of the offense alone. For example, a defendant convict…
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)
- Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2000)
- Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- McKNIGHT v. State, 759 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)