KELVIN CONEY, 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.
Kelvin Coney appeals the denial of his fourth motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The appellate court affirms, holding that Coney's habitual violent felony offender sentence was proper despite his claims that the trial judge failed to make necessary findings and that armed robbery while wearing a mask should constitute a life felony ineligible for such sentencing enhancement.
The court affirmed the denial of Coney's motion. The habitual violent offender sentence was proper. Coney's claim about lack of oral findings was successive and constituted an abuse of procedure as it had already been rejected. Armed robbery while wearing a mask does not become a life felony under section 775.0845, which only applies to offenses up to second degree felonies.
[1] A successive motion to correct an illegal sentence raising an issue previously litigated and affirmed on appeal constitutes an abuse of procedure.
[2] The habitual violent felony offender statute does not preclude enhanced penalties for offenses that are life felonies.
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“At the time Coney committed his offenses, section 775.0845, Florida Statutes (1993), authorized enhanced penalties for offenders who were masked while committing an offense. The statute did not reclassify felonies based on the use of a mask.”
Establishes that the masking statute in effect when Coney committed his crimes did not reclassify felonies and thus did not make armed robbery while masked into a life felony.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceConey was convicted of armed robbery while wearing a mask, attempted armed robbery while wearing a mask, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon,…
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 Enhanced Penalties cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, J.
Kelvin Coney appeals the summary denial of his fourth motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm.
Coney was convicted of armed robbery while wearing a mask, attempted armed robbery while wearing a mask, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and other sundry offenses. He was sentenced to prison as a habitual violent felony offender. Coney claims that the trial judge failed to orally find him to be a habitual violent felony offender. Coney raised this issue in an earlier rule 3.800(a) proceeding, and it was found to be without merit because the record reflects the court made all necessary findings. The order denying the rule 3.800(a) motion was affirmed on appeal. See Coney v. State, 803 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). As such, raising the issue again is successive and constitutes an abuse of procedure.
Coney further alleges that his conviction for armed robbery while wearing a mask is a life felony, and, therefore, his habitual violent offender sentence for that offense is illegal. He bases that argument on the fact that in 1994, when he committed his offenses, habitual violent offender classification was not applicable to defendants who were to be sentenced for crimes punishable as life felonies. See § 775.084(4)(b)(l), Fla. Stat. (1993).
Coney’s reliance on that statute is misplaced. At the time Coney committed his offenses, section 775.0845, Florida Statutes (1993), authorized enhanced penalties for offenders who were masked while committing an offense. The statute did not reclassify felonies based on the use of a mask. By contrast, the current version of section 775.0845 is a felony reclassification statute. See § 775.0845, Fla. Stat. (2002).
Nevertheless, under either version of 775.0845, the highest felony subject to reclassification or enhanced penalties for the use of a mask is a second degree felony. Coney’s offense, a first degree felony punishable by life, does not implicate section 775.0845.
Accordingly, Coney’s classification as a habitual violent felony offender was proper. AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON, C.J. and HARRIS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coney v. State, 855 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…patience and our resources are limited, and continued frivolous challenges by Coney will simply exhaust both. We previously warned Coney that his petitions to this court were “successive and constitute^] an abuse of procedure.” See Coney v. State, 833 So. 2d 290, 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Nonetheless, Coney persisted. We then issued an order pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999), asking Coney to show cause why further pro se filings should be permitted. We find no merit in Coney’s response,…