JAMES WALKER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sequential Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals from the summary denial of his motion to vacate or correct illegal sentence. He argues that he was improperly designated as a habitual felony offender because his prior convictions used for such designation did not qualify as sequential convictions as they were all entered on the same day. We agree. See Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246, 1250 (Fla.2001) (“[Although the sentencing for separate convictions arising out of unrelated crimes can take place on the same day, the sentences cannot be part of same sentencing proceeding” in order to be considered “sequential” for purposes of habitualization) (citation omitted); Wainer v. State, 798 So. 2d 885, 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
We reverse the summary denial of appellant’s motion and remand for re-sentencing in case numbers 95-13940 CF 10A, 95-15725 CF 10A, and 95-15726 CF 10A. On remand, the state may again seek sentencing as a habitual felony offender, subject to evidence of satisfactory predicate convictions. See Rich v. State, 814 So. 2d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Cameron v. State, 807 So. 2d 746, 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Wainer, 798 So. 2d at 885.
POLEN, C.J., STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Ransom Louis Collins, 985 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 2008)…e predicate felonies used to support the sentence); Hughes v. State, 850 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (resentencing ordered where State failed to prove proper predicate felonies as enumerated in section 775.084, Florida Statutes); Walker v. State, 842 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (resentencing ordered where State failed to prove satisfactory evidence of predicate convictions); Robinson v. State, 830 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (resentencing ordered where record evidence did not support a finding that t…
-
Ponton v. State, 73 So. 3d 70 (Fla. 2011)…ot apply to the defendant’s sentencing because his crimes were committed prior to effective date of that provision); Bunch v. State, 976 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (addressing how section 775.084(5) applies to an HFO sentence); Walker v. State, 842 So. 2d 969, 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (addressing how the sequential conviction requirement applies to an HFO sentence); Gordon v. Moore, 832 So. 2d 880, 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (addressing how the sequential conviction requirement applies to an HFO sentence). I…
-
Mincey v. State, 964 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…rate convictions arising out of unrelated crimes can take place on the same day, the sentences cannot be part of same sentencing proceeding” in order to be considered “sequential” for purposes of habitualization) (citation omitted); Walker v. State, 842 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Warner v. State, 798 So. 2d 885, 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). We reverse the summary denial of Min-cey’s motion and remand for re-sentencing. We note the state’s reference to a 1989 “sentence” of probation, see State v. Richardson…
Authorities Cited
- Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2001)
- Cameron v. State, 807 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Rich v. State, 814 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Wainer v. State, 798 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)