JAMES E. PHILLIPS, III, 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.
Appellant's conviction as a habitual felony offender was reversed because all his prior convictions were entered on the same day, failing to satisfy the sequential predicate offense requirement under Florida Statutes section 775.084(5).
A defendant cannot be sentenced as a habitual felony offender when all prior convictions were entered on the same day during the same sentencing proceedings, as this fails to satisfy the sequential predicate offense requirement.
[1] A defendant sentenced as a habitual felony offender must have sequential predicate offenses, and convictions entered on the same day during the same sentencing proceeding…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePhillips pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and battery on a law-enforcement officer and was sentenced as a habitual felony o…
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 Rule 3.800(A) Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion. He pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and battery on a law-enforcement officer, for which he was sentenced as a habitual felony offender to concurrent terms of 20 years’ imprisonment and 10 years’ imprisonment, respectively. In his motion, the appellant claimed his sentences were illegal because he lacks the sequential predicate offenses required by section 775.084(5), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). The record on appeal demonstrates that all the appellant’s prior convictions were entered on the same day during the same sentencing proceedings. See State v. Richardson, 915 So. 2d 86 (Fla.2005) (rejecting the argument that a defendant is “sentenced” only after he violates the terms of his probation and supervision is revoked). Because the trial court’s attachments do not conclusively refute the appellant’s claim, we reverse and remand this case for resentencing. See Kuzminski v. State, 848 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (reversing and remanding for resentencing where the trial court’s attachments did not conclusively refute the appellant’s claim that he lacked predicate offenses to be sentenced as a habitual felony offender).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
BROWNING, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beazley v. State, 18 So. 3d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…nd sentenced separately from any other felony conviction that is to be counted as a prior felony.” The trial court did not attach any documentation indicating that cases 96-2538 and 96-2410 were in fact sequential convictions. See Phillips v. State, 972 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (reversing and remanding denial of rule 3.800(a) motion where trial court did not attach records indicating the predicate felonies were sequential). Thus, it is not clear whether cases 96-2538 and 96-2410 alone could support appe…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Erick Richardson, 915 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2005)
- Kuzminski v. State, 848 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)