GARY RAMONE PHILLIPS, 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.
Court reversed denial of motion to correct illegal sentence, holding that a habitual felony offender enhancement for felony petit theft violates statutory limitations and cannot be imposed regardless of defendant's participation in the sentence.
A habitual felony offender sentence enhancement for felony petit theft is illegal under Florida Statutes § 775.084 and cannot be imposed, even if the defendant participated in or benefited from the sentence.
[1] A defendant cannot be deemed to have agreed to an illegal sentence and may challenge a habitual felony offender enhancement for felony petit theft that violates statutory…
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 intelligenceGary Ramone Phillips received a ten-year habitual felony offender sentence enhancement for felony petit theft convictions. The trial court denied his …
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 Rule 3.800(A) Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Gary Ramone Phillips appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court denied relief, reasoning that appellant could not complain of an illegal sentence where he enjoyed the benefits and participated in the conditions of the sentence. We reverse.
Appellant contends that the habitual offender sentence imposed for his felony petit theft convictions should not have been enhanced pursuant to 775.084, Florida Statutes (1995). See Ridley v. State, 702 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1997). We agree that appellant’s habitual felony offender (ten-year) sentence for' the felony petit theft conviction is illegal, failing to comport with statutory limitations. See Nelson v. State, 719 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Baker v. State, 724 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Appellant could not be deemed to have agreed to such a sentence and he properly raised the claim in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding. See Wilson v. State, 752 So. 2d 1227, 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Brown v. State, 744 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1999). Therefore, we reverse the denial of appellant’s 3.800 motion and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WEBSTER, DAVIS and BENTON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vasseur v. State, 252 So. 3d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Nelson v. State, 719 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Ridley v. State, 702 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Wilson v. State, 752 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Baker v. State, 724 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Brown v. State, 744 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)