ANDRE ADAMS A/K/A STEPHEN WRIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Andre Adams appeals an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence for convictions of strong-arm robbery and resisting a law enforcement officer. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding for the trial court to determine what sentence was actually pronounced and whether written sentencing orders are consistent with the oral pronouncement.
The court remanded for the trial court to determine what sentence was orally pronounced and whether the written sentencing orders are consistent with the oral pronouncement before addressing the double jeopardy claim. The court found no defect in the notice of habitualization and determined that imposition of alternative sentencing orders does not constitute vindictive sentencing.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) may be treated as a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Crimi…
[2] A double jeopardy claim based on the imposition of concurrent sentencing enhancements requires a determination of the orally pronounced sentence and its consistency with…
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“The excerpt appears to say that the VCC and PRR were not both to be imposed on the defendant. Instead, the two were alternatives for each other, such that the PRR sentence would be imposed only if the VCC sentence were struck down.”
Establishes that the sentencing may have involved alternative rather than cumulative sentences, requiring clarification from the complete record.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAdams was convicted of strong-arm robbery and resisting a law enforcement officer without violence. He was sentenced on the robbery count as a violent…
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 Violent Career Criminal (Vcc) Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Andre Adams appeals an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
According to the State response, defendant-appellant Adams was found guilty of strong-arm robbery and resisting a law enforcement officer without violence.1 On direct appeal, this court issued an affir-mance. Adams v. State, 878 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).
The defendant filed his motion to correct illegal sentence, which would also be timely if treated as a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his first issue, the defendant raises a double jeopardy claim. He states that he was sentenced on the robbery count as a violent career criminal (“VCC”) to forty years of incarceration with a thirty year mandatory minimum sentence. He also maintains that he was sentenced on the same count to fifteen years with a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years as a prison releasee reof-fender (“PRR”).
The limited record now before us contains an excerpt of the sentencing transcript. The excerpt appears to say that the VCC and PRR were not both to be imposed on the defendant. Instead, the two were alternatives for each other, such that the PRR sentence would be imposed only if the VCC sentence were struck down.2 However, the complete sentencing transcript was not sent up as part of the postconvietion record. We therefore remand for the trial court to determine (a) what sentence was orally pronounced, and (b) whether the written sentencing orders are consistent with the oral pronouncement. Until that issue is resolved, we need not entertain the double jeopardy claim.
On the second point, there was no defect in the notice of habitualization. See Forcelledo v. State, 898 So. 2d 1058, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). On the third point, the imposition of alternative sentencing orders does not constitute vindictive sentencing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
. Based on the lower tribunal number, the crime date was apparently in 2001.
. In the defendant’s direct appeal, the issue raised was whether he actually qualified as a VCC.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Thomas, 954 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…M. The trial court erred by imposing a downward departure sentence upon the defendant, over the State’s objection, without providing a written statement delineating the reasons for the departure. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.701(d)(11); State v. Sherman, 909 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); State v. Jones, 579 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); State v. Brown, 542 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.…
Authorities Cited
- Forcelledo v. State, 898 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Permuy v. Hilton, Inc., 878 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)