JOHN R. MCMASTER-WADE, 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.
McMaster-Wade appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing he could not receive a habitual violent felony offender sentence on a life felony kidnapping charge. The court held that habitual sentences could not be imposed on life felonies under Florida law at the time of the offenses, and the trial court failed to conclusively refute this claim in the record.
McMaster-Wade's claim that he could not receive a habitual sentence for the kidnapping because it was a life felony is cognizable and correct under Florida law. The trial court failed to conclusively refute this claim in the record, requiring reversal and remand.
[1] A habitual violent felony offender sentence cannot be imposed on a life felony.
[2] A claim that a defendant was illegally sentenced by receiving a habitual violent felony offender sentence on a life felony is cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Pr…
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“McMaster-Wade is correct that at the time the offenses were committed, habitual sentences could not be imposed on life felonies.”
Establishes the core legal principle that habitual sentencing enhancements were prohibited for life felonies under 1990 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 intelligenceIn August 1990, McMaster-Wade committed kidnapping, lewd and lascivious act, and seven sexual batteries against a victim under age thirteen. He receiv…
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 Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
[*218] SILBERMAN, Judge.
John R. McMaster-Wade appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In August 1990, McMaster Wade committed a kidnapping, a lewd and lascivious act, and seven sexual batteries. He received habitual violent felony offender sentences on all counts. In the rule 3.800(a) motion, McMaster-Wade contends that he could not receive a habitual sentence for the kidnapping because it was a life felony. 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 under the age of thirteen, and during the course of the kidnapping, the defendant commits one of several enumerated offenses, including sexual battery. The record on appeal does not include the information or the verdict form, but the sentencing transcript indicates that McMaster-Wade’s charge of kidnapping was enhanced to a life felony because the victim was under the age of thirteen and a sexual battery occurred during the course of the kidnapping.
The kidnapping was listed and scored as a life felony on the sentencing guidelines scoresheet, and the judgment shows that the kidnapping was a violation of both section 787.01(l)(a)(2) and section 787.01(3), Florida Statutes (1989). While the judgment states that the offense was a first-degree felony, in light of the other portions of the record, this would seem to be a scrivener’s error. However, we cannot resolve the discrepancy based on the limited record before us.
Because the trial court did not attach to its order any portion of the record that conclusively refutes McMaster-Wade’s claim, we reverse and remand this issue. On remand, the trial court shall determine whether McMaster-Wade was, in fact, habitualized on a life felony. If the trial court finds that he was illegally sentenced, the trial court shall resentence him to a legal sentence. If the trial court finds that he was not illegally sentenced, the trial court shall attach to its order those portions of the record that conclusively refute McMaster-Wade’s claim.
Reversed and remanded.
GREEN and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 847 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…subject to enhanced punishment as a habitual offender under the statute in effect at the time of the offense. We agree. See Cole v. State, 716 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). This claim is cognizable in a 3.800(a) motion. See McMaster-Wade v. State, 830 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). We therefore remand to the trial court to strike Johnson’s habitual offender designation on counts one through six. It is not necessary for Johnson to be resentenced on those counts since the offense of attempted murder of a law…
Authorities Cited
- Lamont v. State, 610 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1992)
- Young v. State, 787 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)