LEOTIS SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, J.
The appellant, Leotis Smith, was erroneously sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual offender. Smith did not meet the statutory criteria required by section 775.084(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1999). Three felony convictions were relied upon by the sentencing court. Two of those convictions were entered at the same time, and therefore cannot be counted against Smith under the statute. See Prince v. State, 684 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Ford v. State, 652 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Alfonso v. State, 659 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Moreover, a habitual felony offender sentence cannot be predicated upon an offense or conviction which occurred after the current offense for which the defendant is being sentenced. Rhodes v. State, 704 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The sentence below was “illegal” as that term has now been defined by the Florida Supreme Court. See Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000).
Accordingly, we reverse the sentences entered below and remand for resentencing.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HARRIS and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Ransom Louis Collins, 985 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 2008)…rom prison for prior offenses); Freeman v. State, 773 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (noting that resentencing had been ordered after State improperly habitualized defendant for two offenses arising out of the same criminal episode); Smith v. State, 766 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (resentencing ordered where trial court erred in relying on two convictions that had been entered at the same time; an HFO sentence cannot be predicated upon an offense or conviction occurring after current offense); Bellamy v. S…
-
Jerry v. State, 293 So. 3d 1044 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)…ior conviction, leaving a total of two lawful predicate convictions. Therefore, Jerry was properly deemed an HFO. Jerry relies upon two cases in support of his position, Alfonso v. State, 659 So. 2d 478, 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), and Smith v. State, 766 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Alfonso is distinguishable because the lower court imposed an HFO sentence based solely upon two simultaneous convictions. 659 So. 2d at 478. Although the sentencing order in Alfonso recited “two other non-contemporaneous convic…
Authorities Cited
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- Rhodes v. State, 704 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Simmons v. State, 684 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Ford v. State, 652 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Alfonso v. State, 659 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)