LAWRENCE J. 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 appellate court affirmed the denial of most of a defendant's claims regarding his habitual felony offender (HFO) designation, but reversed and remanded on one issue. The court cautioned the defendant against further frivolous appeals on this matter.
The court affirmed the denial of the first three issues regarding the HFO designation. However, the court reversed and remanded on the fourth issue, finding that the resentencing documents may have failed to properly reflect the HFO designation.
[1] A defendant's repeated attempts to raise the same or similar claims attacking a habitual felony offender designation may result in sanctions, including loss of gain time.
[2] A trial court's summary denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence must be supported by attached documents refuting the claim when the defendant alleges the senten…
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“We once again affirm the trial court’s denial of these claims, and caution Vickers that any further attempt to raise this issue again could result in sanctions, including a loss of gain time.”
Establishes the court's decision on the repetitive claims and warns the appellant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLawrence J. Vickers appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, raising four issues. Three issues challenged his habitua…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
LAWSON, J.
Lawrence J. Vickers appeals from the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), raising four issues. This is Vickers’ fifth appeal from the denial of 3.800 motions. All have alleged the same or similar claims attacking Vickers’ designation as a habitual felony offender, (“HFO”). The first three issues raised in this appeal again challenge Vickers’ HFO designation. We once again affirm the trial court’s denial of these claims, and caution Vickers that any further attempt to raise this issue again could result in sanctions, including a loss of gain time. See, e.g., Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); see also § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2006).
In his fourth claim, Vickers appears to allege that the sentence he received on resentencing in accordance with our mandate in Vickers v. State, 935 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“Vickers IV”), on count II in ease number 2002-CF-482, failed to include the HFO designation. He claims that the sentence is illegal because it exceeds the five-year maximum penalty for a third-degree felony without the HFO enhancement. Because the trial court did not attach any documents refuting this claim, we cannot tell whether the resentencing documents reflect the HFO designation with respect to this count. Clearly, they should. Our directions in Vickers IV were to resentence Vickers on that count to a sentence not to exceed ten years. Implied in the mandate is a direction that the resentencing documents would again reflect the HFO designation. If by oversight the resentencing documents failed to reflect the HFO designation, they should be corrected.
Therefore, we reverse as to Vickers’ fourth issue and remand with directions that the trial court either attach documents demonstrating that the HFO designation is properly reflected in the resentencing documents, or correct those documents to reflect that Vickers was sentenced on count II in case number 2002-CF-482 as an HFO.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
PALMER, C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clark v. State, 72 So. 3d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…essing Clark’s first issue, we hold that the trial court’s inadvertent failure to orally pronounce Clark’s HFO designation at his second sentencing hearing did not prevent the trial court from subsequently correcting the error. See Vickers v. State, 967 So. 2d 1060, 1061 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (allowing for correction of re-sentencing documents to reflect the HFO designation); Duhart v. State, 930 So. 2d 654, 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that the trial court’s failure to repeat the defendant’s HFO designation…
Authorities Cited
- Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Lawerence J. Vickers v. State, 935 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)