CARNERI FRED SHINE, 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.
Carneri Fred Shine appealed the denial of his postconviction Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging his habitual felony offender (HFO) designation and sentencing. The appellate court affirmed the denial of seven claims but reversed as to the improper HFO designation on three drug counts and an illegal sentence on one count, finding that Florida law prohibits habitualization for controlled substance possession offenses.
The court reversed the trial court's order regarding the improper HFO designation on counts II, III, and IV because section 775.084(l)(a)(3) of the Florida Statutes does not permit habitualization for felonies relating to purchase or possession of controlled substances. Additionally, the 20-year sentence on count III was illegal because possession of cannabis with intent to sell is a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years, or maximum 10 years with HFO enhancement, not 20 years.
[1] Habitual felony offender status cannot be imposed for a felony relating to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance.
[2] A claim that a sentence is illegal is not necessarily barred by collateral estoppel if the prior litigation did not determine the issue on its merits.
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“section 775.084(l)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (1999), does not permit habitualization for a felony "relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance."”
Establishes the legal basis for reversing the improper HFO designation on the drug charges
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShine was convicted of multiple drug offenses: possession of cocaine with intent to sell (count II), possession of cannabis with intent to sell (count…
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 (Hfo) Designation cases and more on FLexlaw
Carneri Fred Shine appeals the summary denial of his motion seeking postcon-viction relief brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm, without comment, the postconviction court’s denial of seven of the Appellant’s nine claims. However, as to his claims that he was improperly habitualized as to counts II, III, and IV and that an illegal sentence was imposed as to count III, we reverse.
In the instant postconviction motion, the Appellant argued that he was improperly designated as a habitual felony offender (HFO) for the offenses of possession of cocaine with the intent to sell (count II), possession of cannabis with the intent to sell (count III), and possession of cocaine with the intent to sell within 200 feet of a public park (count IV). This claim has merit, as section 775.084(l)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (1999), does not permit habituali-zation for a felony “relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance.” See Jones v. State, 988 So.2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Harris v. State, 695 So.2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Further, as the State concedes in its response to this Court’s Toler 1 order, though the trial court indicated that this claim was barred by collateral estoppel, the documents attached to the order of denial do not demonstrate that this issue has been litigated and determined on the merits.
Additionally, the Appellant alleged that the trial court imposed a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum as to count III. The record reflects that a 20-year habitual sentence was imposed as to this offense. However, possession of cannabis with the intent to sell is a third-degree felony punishable by a sentence of up to five years in prison. See §§ 893.13(l)(a)(2); 775.082(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (1999). Even if the HFO enhancement applied, this would only permit a 10-year prison sentence. See § 775.084(4)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. (1999). Therefore, the Appellant’s sentence appears to be illegal. As the State concedes in its response, the trial court’s order did not directly address this claim and it is not refuted by the documents attached to the order.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order as to these claims and remand for further proceedings.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
CLARK, WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Toler v. State, 493 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Kendrick Harris v. State, 695 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Jones v. State, 988 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)