SAMMY ROSS, 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 if sentences for unrelated crimes arise from the same sentencing proceeding, the habitual offender sentence may not stand.
Sammy Ross was sentenced as a habitual felony offender. He was serving probation for armed robbery when it was revoked, and he received sentences for …
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 Habitual Felony Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sammy Ross challenges his sentence as an habitual felony offender. On March 9, 1989, Ross was placed on probation for armed robbery and related charges.
On July 7, 1989, the probation was revoked and he was sentenced to seventeen years in prison. On the same day, Ross was also sentenced in two other unrelated robbery cases; he was sentenced to seventeen years in each case to run concurrently with the sentence imposed for the first robbery.
On this record, we cannot tell whether the July 7, 1989 sentences arose out of the same sentencing proceeding. See Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246, 1250 (Fla.2001) (where court held that under the habitual offender statute, “although the sentencing for separate convictions arising out of unrelated crimes can take place on the same day, the sentences cannot be part of the same sentencing proceeding”).
Therefore, we remand to the circuit court for further proceedings. If the court finds that the July 7, 1989 sentences were imposed at different sentencing proceedings, then the habitual offender sentence may stand. However, if the court finds that all such sentences were imposed in the same sentencing proceeding, then Richardson v. State, 884 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) applies, and Ross must be resentenced. We again certify conflict with McCall v. State, 862 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
GROSS, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ross v. State, 942 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…[*1025] ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT PER CURIAM. This case is before us on remand from the Florida Supreme Court which quashed our earlier decision reported at Ross v. State, 912 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). On the authority of State v. Richardson, 915 So. 2d 86 (Fla.2005), we affirm the habitual felony offender sentence. GROSS, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
-
State v. Ross, 940 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 2006)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Ross v. State, 912 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal cited with approval its decision in Richardson v. State, 884 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), reh’g granted in part, 884 So. 2d 950, 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), quashed, 915 So. 2d 86 (Fl…
Authorities Cited
- Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2001)
- Erick Richardson v. State, 884 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- McCALL v. State, 862 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)