JAMES L. BUNCH, 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 defendant's habitual offender sentences may be illegal if predicate convictions were not sequential, and remanded for the state to present evidence.
The defendant was sentenced as a habitual felony offender based on two prior convictions that occurred on the same date. He argued this violated the s…
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) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James Bunch appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. Mr. Bunch was sentenced as a habitual felony offender on two counts of sale of cocaine.1 He contends that his habitual offender sentences are illegal because the lower court relied upon prior predicate convictions that were .not sequential. See § 775.084(5), Fla. Stat. (2000); Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246, 1248-49 (Fla.2001).
The sentencing transcript reflects that both prior convictions used for habitualization occurred on September 8, 1998. At the sentencing, although the assistant state attorney referred to other prior convictions, none were actually admitted into evidence.2
Because Mr. Bunch did not raise this issue or object at the original sentencing hearing, on remand, the State will have the opportunity to present record evidence that would satisfy the sequential sentencing requirements of section 775.084(5). See Bover, 797 So. 2d at 1248^9.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PLEUS, TORPY and COHEN, JJ., concur. . Mr. Bunch was also sentenced on two counts of possession of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. . The record does not reflect that the September 8, 1998 convictions occurred at separate sentencing proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ponton v. State, 73 So. 3d 70 (Fla. 2011)…See Wilson v. State, 25 So. 3d 704, 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (holding that the sequential conviction requirement did not apply to the defendant’s sentencing because his crimes were committed prior to effective date of that provision); Bunch v. State, 976 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (addressing how section 775.084(5) applies to an HFO sentence); Walker v. State, 842 So. 2d 969, 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (addressing how the sequential conviction requirement applies to an HFO sentence); Gordon v. Moore, 832 So.…
Authorities Cited
- Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2001)