JEMAL X. REAMS, 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.
Court reversed convictions for armed kidnapping and armed sexual battery that were improperly enhanced under the habitual felony offender statute, as life felonies cannot be enhanced under that statute, but affirmed the habitual offender enhancement for armed robbery.
A habitual felony offender enhancement is illegal when applied to life felonies such as armed kidnapping and armed sexual battery, but may be properly applied to first-degree felonies like armed robbery.
[1] A habitual felony offender enhancement cannot be imposed on life felonies when the applicable statute prohibited such enhancement at the time of the offense, but may be i…
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 intelligence“a habitual offender sentence, which is solely a creature of statute, is illegal where the habitual offender statute in effect at the time of the offense prohibited the imposition of a habitual offender sentence”
Court citing Carter v. State for the principle that improper habitualization is illegal when prohibited by statute
Appellant Reams was convicted of armed kidnapping (a life felony), armed sexual battery (a life felony), and armed robbery (a first-degree felony), wi…
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 Armed Sexual Battery cases and more on FLexlaw
In its response to this Court’s order issued pursuant to Toler v. State, 493 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), the state has conceded that the appellant’s convictions for armed kidnapping, a life felony, and armed sexual battery, also a life felony, should not have been enhanced by the habitual felony offender statute. See Lamont v. State, 610 So.2d 435 (Fla.1992); Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173 (Fla.2001) (“We hold that a habitual offender sentence, which is solely a creature of statute, is illegal where the habitual offender statute in effect at the time of the offense prohibited the imposition of a habitual offender sentence”) and noting that “improper habitualization may have collateral consequences that could ultimately increase the length of [a defendant’s] sentence” (citing Ashley v. State, 614 So.2d 486, 489 (Fla.1993)).
We therefore reverse and remand the order on appeal for the trial court to strike *123the habitual felony offender enhancement of the appellant’s convictions for armed kidnapping and armed sexual battery. The habitual felony offender enhancement of the appellant’s conviction for armed robbery, a first-degree felony punishable by life, need not be stricken. See Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 267 (Fla.1992).
REVERSED AND REMANDED with directions.
WOLF, PADOVANO, and MARSTILLER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1993)
- Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1992)
- Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 2001)
- Lamont v. State, 610 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1992)
- Toler v. State, 493 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)