WILLIAM SIMS, 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.
William Sims appealed an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The court held that while his HVFO adjudication on count two (armed kidnapping) was illegal because the crime occurred during a window period when the habitual offender statute was unconstitutional, his HVFO adjudication on count one (armed robbery) was permissible and properly imposed.
The HVFO adjudication on count two (armed kidnapping, a life felony) was illegal and must be struck because the crime occurred during the unconstitutionality window period (October 1, 1995 through May 24, 1997). The HVFO adjudication on count one (armed robbery with a firearm, a first-degree felony) was legal and properly imposed because armed robbery with a firearm is a first-degree felony punishable by life imprisonment, not a life felony.
[1] A habitual violent felony offender adjudication is impermissible for a crime committed during the period when the habitual offender statute was declared unconstitutional…
[2] A crime committed between October 1, 1995, and May 24, 1997, may not be subject to habitual offender sentencing if the relevant statutory amendment was later found uncons…
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“Because the defendant's crime date fell within the window period, it was not permissible for an HVFO adjudication to be imposed on count two, armed kidnapping, which is a life felony.”
Establishes the core holding that crimes committed during the unconstitutionality window period cannot support HVFO adjudications for life felonies.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSims was convicted of armed robbery (count one) and armed kidnapping (count two). The crime date was October 15, 1995. He was sentenced as a habitual …
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 Single Subject Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, J.
Williams Sims appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Defendant-appellant Sims challenges his sentence as a habitual violent felony offender (“HVFO”) on count two, armed kidnapping. The judgment classifies count two as a life felony. See §§ 775.087, 787.01(2), Fla. Stat. (1995). The crime date was October 15,1995.
The trial court denied relief because the habitual offender statute had been amended effective October 1,1995, to allow habit-ualization for life felonies. See Lafleur v. State, 661 So. 2d 346, 349 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (citing ch. 95-182, § 2, Laws of Fla.)
Thereafter, however, the Florida Supreme Court declared chapter 95-182 unconstitutional on account of a violation of the single subject rule. State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643, 649 (Fla.1999). The window period for unconstitutionality was October 1, 1995, through May 24, 1997. Id. at 645. Because the defendant’s crime date fell within the window period, it was not permissible for an HVFO adjudication to be imposed on count two, armed kidnapping, which is a life felony.
We therefore reverse the order now before us with respect to count two only, and remand with directions to strike the HVFO adjudication and fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence on that count. Because the defendant is serving a concurrent life sentence as an HVFO on count one, the defendant need not be personally present for the correction of sentence on count two, but shall be represented by counsel on remand.
The defendant also challenges his HVFO sentence on count one, armed robbery. Here, too, he argues that habituali-zation was impermissible. However, the defendant is incorrect. The judgment reflects that the defendant was convicted of armed robbery with a firearm, which is a first-degree felony punishable by life imprisonment. § 812.13(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). Adjudication as an HVFO was permissible. See id. § 775.084(4)(b)a; Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267, 271 (Fla. 1992). We affirm the denial of relief with regard to count one.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bell v. State, 219 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…a. Stat. (1995). While it is true that the habitual offender statute was amended to apply to life felonies by chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, effective October 1, 1995, that amendment was subsequently held to be unconstitutional. See Sims v. State, 997 So. 2d 1166, 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). The -window period for its unconstitutionality ran from October 1, 1995, through May 24, 1997. Id. (citing State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643, 649 (Fla. 1999)). The appellant’s offenses were committed within that window peri…
-
Faulk v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…October 1, 1995, through May 24, 1997. The appellant's offenses were committed within that window period. Given this authority, the HVFO designation was not properly imposed as to the sexual battery convictions.” (citations omitted)); Sims v. State, 997 So. 2d 1166, 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“The window period for unconstitutionality was October 1, 1995, through May 24, 1997. Because the defendant’s crime date fell within the window period, it was not permissible for an HVFO adjudication to be imposed on count…
Authorities Cited
- Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1999)
- Hollice Lafleur v. State, 661 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)