WILLIAM SPIVEY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2002-11-06
No. 3D02-222
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and GERSTEN, JJ.
829 So. 2d 386 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2002) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

William Spivey appeals an order resentencing him on count one of Miami-Dade County circuit court case number 96-32448.* Defendant-appellant Spivey was originally sentenced to seventeen years as a habitual offender on count one. Pursuant to a motion for postconviction relief, the habitualization was removed from that count and the defendant was sentenced to seventeen years under the sentencing guidelines. He was not represented by counsel at that resentencing.

It appears that the defendant may be entitled to relief under Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). We vacate the sentencing order and remand for a determination whether Heggs is applicable and for resentencing. The defendant shall be present and represented by counsel. Smith v. State, 820 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

Reversed and remanded for resentencing.

*

We have granted the petition for belated appeal of this order.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Jordan v. State, 853 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
    …on Jordan (“defendant”) appeals an order resentencing him, on the ground that he was sentenced without counsel present. The state properly concedes that the resentencing of the defendant without the benefit of counsel was error. See Spivey v. State, 829 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Smith v. State, 820 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). [*559] Accordingly, we remand this case for resentencing, at which time the defendant will present and represented by the Public Defender. Reversed and remanded for resentenc-…
  • Spivey v. State, 870 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
    …COPE, J. (concurring). This court’s decision in Spivey v. State, 829 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), remanded the case for resentencing on count one only. The State is correct that count two was not reopened for resentencing and the previously-imposed habitual offender sentence on that count remained intact.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw