DEMOINE WORKS, 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.
Demoine Works appealed his convictions for shooting at an occupied vehicle and misdemeanor battery. The court affirmed his convictions but reversed his sentence for the shooting because the trial court improperly imposed both a habitual felony offender designation and a violent career criminal designation for the same offense.
A trial court cannot sentence a defendant as both a habitual felony offender and a violent career criminal for the same offense. Therefore, Works's sentence for the shooting must be reversed, and on remand the trial court may impose only one of the two designations.
[1] A trial court cannot sentence a defendant as both a habitual felony offender and a violent career criminal for the same offense.
[2] A defendant may be sentenced as either a habitual felony offender or a violent career criminal, but not both, for a single offense.
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“a trial court cannot sentence a defendant as both a habitual felony offender and a violent career criminal for the same offense”
Establishes the core holding that dual sentencing designations for a single offense are prohibited under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWorks was convicted of shooting at, within, or into an occupied vehicle and misdemeanor battery. The trial court sentenced him to thirty years' impris…
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 Convictions and Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Demoine Works appeals his convictions and sentences for shooting at, within, or into an occupied vehicle and for misdemeanor battery. We affirm three of the four issues raised by Works without comment. However, as to the shooting, because the trial court sentenced Works as both a habitual felony offender and a violent career criminal, we reverse the sentence.
Works was sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment for the shooting. On the sentencing form, the trial court checked both the habitual felony offender designation and the violent career criminal designation. As to the latter, the trial court ordered that Works must serve a minimum term of thirty years’ imprisonment prior to his release.
During the pendency of this appeal, Works filed a motion to correct sentencing errors pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). Works raised several issues including that he was improperly sentenced as both a habitual felony offender and a violent career criminal. The trial court denied the motion as to that issue.
In a recent decision, the Fourth District Court of Appeal analyzed the language of section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1999), and held that a trial court cannot sentence a defendant as both a habitual felony offender and a violent career criminal for the same offense. Oberst v. State, 796 So. 2d 1263, 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). We agree with the rationale of Oberst and conclude that Works’s sentence for the shooting must be reversed.1 On remand, the trial court may only sentence Works either as a habitual felony offender or as a violent career criminal.
Accordingly, we affirm Works’ conviction and sentence for battery, we affirm his conviction for shooting at, within, or into an occupied vehicle, and we reverse his sentence for the shooting. We remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
FULMER and SALCINES, JJ., concur. . We recognize that the trial court did not have the benefit of Oberst when the sentence was imposed or when the motion to correct sentencing errors was decided. We also note that in two cases decided prior to Oberst, the courts upheld sentences that were imposed under both the habitual felony offender stat- ' ute and the violent career criminal statute. See Iman v. State, 784 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (involving a double jeopardy analysis); Dennis v. State, 784 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (involving an analysis under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000)). Because Iman and Dennis were not decided on the issue addressed in Oberst, on which our decision is based, we decline to certify conflict with those cases.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clines v. State, 912 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2005)…CANTERO, J. We review Clines v. State, 881 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), which certified conflict with Works v. State, 814 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), and Oberst v. State, 796 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The issue on which they disagree is whether the recidivist sentencing statute allows a court to sentence a defendant as both a habitual felony offender and a violent caree…1 / 2
-
Jones v. State, 964 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…Id. The supreme court’s decision in Clines issued during the pendency of the direct appeal in this case. The supreme court granted review in Clines based on the First District’s certification of conflict with this court’s holding in Works v. State, 814 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), and the Fourth District’s holding in Oberst v. State, 796 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The opinion in Works issued prior to the conviction in the present case and was available to appellate counsel. Works was sentenced as bot…
-
Clines v. State, 881 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…rgues that his sentence is illegal as contrary to legislative intent. He relies upon the reasoning of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Oberst v. State, 796 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The Second District followed Oberst in Works v. State, 814 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). In response, the State relies upon our decision in Iman v. State, 784 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), holding in a similar situation that no double jeopardy violation is shown because the resulting sentence is only one sentence…
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
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Mack v. State, 796 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Slaton v. State, 784 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Hernandez v. State of Fla. & Ken Jenne, 784 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Iman v. State, 784 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)