DERRICK LEONARD YOUNG, 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.
Derrick Young appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence imposed as a habitual violent felony offender on life felonies. The court reverses and remands because the trial court failed to attach record portions refuting Young's claim that habitual sentences cannot be imposed on life felonies, and identifies an additional potential sentencing illegality regarding a life sentence for attempted armed robbery.
The trial court's summary denial was reversed as to the habitual sentencing claim because it failed to attach record portions refuting Young's assertion. The court remanded for the trial court to determine whether Young was habitualized on life felonies and, if so, to resentence him or attach refuting record portions. The court also identified that Young's life sentence for attempted armed robbery may be illegal because the maximum punishment for a second degree felony under the habitual violent felony offender statute is thirty years, not life imprisonment.
[1] Habitual violent felony offender sentences cannot be imposed on life felonies.
[2] A motion to correct an illegal sentence is facially insufficient if it requires resort to extra-record facts to determine if offenses were part of the same criminal episo…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Young is correct that at the time the offenses in this case were committed, April 15, 1991, habitual sentences could not be imposed on life felonies.”
Establishes that Young's core claim regarding the illegality of habitual sentences on life felonies has merit under existing law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYoung was sentenced on April 15, 1991, with the trial court imposing habitual violent felony offender sentences on life felonies. Young filed a motion…
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 Life Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
[*260] BLUE, Judge.
Derrick Leonard Young appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Young first claims that he was sentenced illegally because the trial court imposed habitual violent felony offender sentences on life felonies. Young is correct that at the time the offenses in this case were committed, April 15, 1991, habitual sentences could not be imposed on life felonies. See Lamont v. State, 610 So. 2d 435 (Fla.1992). Because the trial court did not attach to its order any portion of the record refuting Young’s claim, we reverse and remand this issue. On remand, the trial court shall determine whether Young was, in fact, habitualized on any offenses that are life felonies. If the court finds that he was illegally sentenced, the trial court shall resentence him accordingly. If the court finds that he was not illegally sentenced, it shall attach to its order portions of the record that conclusively refute Young’s claim.
Young next claims he was sentenced in violation of Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993). His claim is facially insufficient as a rule 3.800(a) motion because he failed to assert that the determination of whether the offenses were part of the same criminal episode could be made “without resort to extra-record facts.” See Allen v. State, 779 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Adams v. State, 755 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). We, therefore, affirm this claim without prejudice to any right Young might have to file a facially sufficient claim under rule 3.800(a) or a timely motion under rule 3.850.
We also note that, in his motion, Young alleges he received a sentence of life imprisonment as a habitual violent felony offender on his conviction for attempted armed robbery. The maximum punishment for a second degree felony under the habitual violent felony offender statute is thirty years’ imprisonment. § 775.084, Fla. Stat. (1991). Therefore, this sentence may be illegal. On remand, the trial court shall either resentence Young on count two within the maximum allowed or attach a portion of the record that refutes Young’s claim. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 590 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (stating that enhancement for use of a firearm under section 775.087 is improper on attempted robbery with a firearm conviction).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 803 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…ew under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) because it raises factual questions. We affirm the denial of the motion without prejudice to any right Appellant might have to file a facially sufficient claim under rule 3.800(a). Young v. State, 787 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Appellant alleged he was tried and found guilty of two counts of sale of cocaine and two counts of possession of (the same) cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, all of which offenses are second-degree felonies. § 893.13(l)(a)…
-
West v. State, 825 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…he error is apparent on the face of the record. This claim is cognizable under rule 3.800(a) if the determination of whether the offenses were part of the same criminal episode can be made without resorting to extra-record facts. See Young v. State, 787 So. 2d 259, 260 (Fla.2001). The trial court failed to address this issue. On July 7, 1988, West attempted to commit a murder with a gun, and on the same date, he illegally possessed a firearm. From the limited record on appeal, it appears that these crimes o…
-
McMASTER-Wade v. State, 830 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…. McMaster-Wade is correct that at the time the offenses were committed, habitual sentences could not be imposed on life felonies. See Lamont v. State, 610 So. 2d 435, 438 (Fla.1992). This claim is cognizable under rule 3.800(a). See Young v. State, 787 So. 2d 259, 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The trial court failed to refute conclusively this claim. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings. Under section 787.01(3), Florida Statutes (1989), kidnapping is enhanced to a life felony if the victim is…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Lamont v. State, 610 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1992)
- Adams v. State, 755 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Williams v. State, 590 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Allen v. State, 779 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Hester v. State, 779 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)