LAWRENCE VICKERS, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred by summarily denying the defendant's motion without attaching sufficient records to refute the claim.
[1] A habitual felony offender sentence is authorized only when the felony for which a defendant is convicted and one of the two required prior convictions is not a violation…
[2] A trial court must attach to its order copies of the record sufficient to refute a defendant's claim when denying a rule 3.800(a) motion.
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 intelligenceThe defendant was sentenced as a habitual felony offender for possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver. He moved to vacate, arguing the st…
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 Sentencing Enhancement Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Lawrence James Vickers [‘Vickers”], appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion. Vickers alleged in his motion that he was sentenced in three cases to seven and one-half years as a habitual felony offender for possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1997).
Vickers argues that the habitual felony offender statute does not authorize habitu-alization for a violation of section 893.13. A habitual felony offender sentence is authorized only when the felony for which a defendant is convicted and one of the two required prior convictions is not a violation of section 893.13. See § 775.084(l)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. (1997).
The trial court’s order speaks only to prior convictions, finding that Vicker’s pri-or record included many qualifying felonies. The trial court did not mention the offenses at conviction or attach any documents to its order.1
The State, in its response, acknowledges the correctness of Vickers’ statement of the law and the failure of the trial court to attach any documents to its order as required. The State refers us to the Florida Department of Corrections’ web site, which the State says shows that Vickers was convicted of two offenses in case number 02-482: sale, manufacture or delivery of cocaine, not possession; and battery on a law enforcement officer. Because the pertinent records are not attached, we have gotten all the way through this appeal without knowing Vicker’s current conviction, prior record, or even what his sentence was. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court to attach to its order copies of the record sufficient to refute appellant’s claim.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GRIFFIN, PLEUS and PALMER, JJ., concur. . The appealed order implies that Vickers may have been sentenced as an habitual violent felony offender, rather than an habitual felony offender, as the court cites section 775.084(l)(b)l, the habitual violent felony subsection, and states that only one prior violent felony need be established.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Green, 12 So. 3d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…e failed to preserve the issue in the trial court. As we have previously stated, to properly preserve the issue, the State must call the court’s attention to the need for downward departure reasons with a proper objection. See State v. Merriweather, 875 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); State v. Henriquez, 717 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); see also State v. Golkiewicz, 930 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). The State did not object to the downward departure and did not request reasons for the downward departure.…
-
Lawerence J. Vickers v. State, 935 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…PER CURIAM. Appellant challenges the legality of his sentence. Pursuant to remand in Vickers v. State, 875 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), the trial court resentenced Appellant in numerous cases. We reject Appellant’s challenges except as to the sentences in Case No. 02-M82. In that case, although the record is not clear, it appears that Appellant might have receiv…