ERIC ANTONIO GIBSON, 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.
Eric Gibson appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a), arguing that his 8-year habitual offender sentence was rendered pursuant to an unconstitutional 1995 sentencing guidelines amendment. The court affirmed the denial, holding that because Gibson was sentenced as a habitual offender, the sentencing guidelines did not apply and his sentence was legally permissible.
The sentence was not illegal because habitual offender sentences are not subject to sentencing guidelines limitations. Even if the 1995 guidelines were unconstitutional, Gibson's sentence of 8 years for a second-degree felony was permissible under the habitual offender statute, which allowed sentences up to 30 years for such offenses.
[1] A sentence imposed as a habitual offender is not subject to the sentencing guidelines.
[2] A habitual offender sentence is not illegal merely because it was imposed pursuant to an unconstitutionally enacted sentencing guidelines amendment, if the sentence could…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A sentence imposed under this section is not subject to s. 921.001.”
Establishes that habitual offender sentences are statutorily exempt from sentencing guidelines limitations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGibson committed his offenses on January 17, 1997, and pleaded nolo contendere on May 28, 1998, agreeing to a guideline habitual sentence. He was sent…
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 Constitutional Limitations cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Eric Antonio Gibson has appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. He claims that his sentence was rendered pursuant to the 1995 amendment to the sentencing guidelines, declared unconstitutional in Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). Because Mr. Gibson allegedly committed his offenses on January 17, 1997, within the window period to challenge the statute on the ground of unconstitutionality, he contends that he has standing to raise this claim. See Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2000).
Mr. Gibson’s motion alleges that he pleaded nolo contendere on May 28, 1998, agreeing to be sentenced to “a guideline habitual sentence.” The sentence im posed, eight years, is at the top of the recommended guideline range of 57.8 to 96.3 months. The scoresheet carries a hand-written notation that this is a state prison sentence of “8 yrs HFO.” The thrust of Mr. Gibson’s claim under rule 3.800(a) is that his sentence is illegal because of the unconstitutional enactment of the 1995 sentencing guidelines amendment. Furthermore, under the 1994 version of the guidelines, the maximum guidelines sentence that the trial court could have imposed would have been, according to Mr. Gibson’s calculations, seventy months.
The trial court rejected Mr. Gibson’s claim on the ground that his classification and sentencing as a habitual offender rendered the sentencing guidelines inapplicable. See 775.084(4)(g), Fla. Stat. (1995) (“A sentence imposed under this section is not subject to s. 921.001.”). A habitual offender sentence of eight years’ imprisonment for the second degree felony of felon in possession of a firearm clearly is not an illegal sentence, because section 785.084(4)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (1995), permitted a sentence of up to thirty years’ Florida State Prison for a second degree felony. Thus, no matter how Mr. Gibson’s “guidelines” sentence would have been calculated under the 1994 guidelines, the sentence as imposed was nevertheless legal and not subject to correction under rule 3.800(a).
The trial court properly denied Mr. Gibson’s rule 3.800(a) motion as facially insufficient. As this court stated in Fuston v. State, 764 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (quoting State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998)), an illegal sentence not only “exceeds the statutory maximum” but also “ ‘patently fails to comport with statutory or constitutional limitations.’ ” See also Abaunza v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D1962 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug.16, 2000) (holding that Mr. Abaunza’s habitual offender sentence, imposed pursuant to the unconstitutionally-enacted 1995 guidelines, was not illegal because he could have received the same sentence even if his scoresheet had been prepared under the 1994 guidelines).
We do note, however, that we cannot discern from Mr. Gibson’s motion or from the court’s order whether his sentence was the product of a negotiated plea. Under appropriate circumstances Mr. Gibson might be entitled to raise a claim pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Hence, our affirmance is without prejudice to his ability to do so.
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and NORTH-CUTT, J„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peek v. State, 143 So. 3d 1101 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…iscretion on the part of the trial court in imposing a HFO sentence. See State v. Hudson, 698 So. 2d 831, 832 (Fla.1997) (extending the permissive nature of the HFO sentencing to the decision to impose a mandatory minimum sentence); Gibson v. State, 775 So. 2d 353, 354 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)(stating that a sentence of less than the statutory maximum will not be found to be illegal simply because it is less than the statutory maximum). C.f. Lett v. State, 805 So. 2d 950, 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (stating that the se…
-
George v. State, 779 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…rect an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the trial court’s order without prejudice for George to file a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. [*560] See Gibson v. State, 775 So. 2d 353 (Fla.2d DCA 2000); Murphy v. State, 773 So. 2d 1174 (Fla.2d DCA 2000) (en banc). We make no comment by this opinion as to whether George would be entitled to relief under rule 3.850. Affirmed. BLUE, A.C.J., and GREEN and DAVIS, J., concur.…
-
Oliver v. State, 779 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…er whether Oliver’s sentence was the result of a negotiated plea. If it was, Oliver might be entitled to relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. This affirmance is without prejudice for Oliver to seek such relief. See Gibson v. State, 775 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Murphy v. State, 773 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (en banc). Affirmed. BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and GREEN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)
- Fuston v. State, 764 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)