VINCENT JONES, 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.
Vincent Jones appealed his conviction for two counts of first degree murder and one count of attempted first degree murder, challenging his conviction, sentencing under the 10-20-Life statute, and designation as a habitual felony offender. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and mandatory life sentences but reversed the habitual felony offender designation, finding that capital crimes cannot be enhanced under Florida's habitual offender statute.
The court affirmed the conviction and mandatory life sentences for first degree murder but reversed the habitual felony offender designation. Capital felonies cannot be enhanced under the habitual felony offender statute; the statute permits enhancement only for life felonies or felonies of the first degree.
[1] A conviction for first-degree murder, a capital felony, cannot be enhanced by designating the defendant as a habitual felony offender.
[2] The statute governing habitual felony offender enhancements permits enhancement only for life felonies or first-degree felonies, not capital felonies.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Capital crimes cannot be enhanced under the plain language of section 775.084(4)(a)1.”
Establishes the central holding that first degree murder, being a capital crime, is not subject to habitual felony offender enhancement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJones was convicted by jury of two counts of first degree murder and one count of attempted first degree murder stemming from a shooting incident outs…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for two counts of first degree murder and one count of attempted first degree murder. He raises three issues. First, he argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. In his second and third issues, he argues the court erred in sentencing him to a mandatory minimum under the 10-20-Life statute and in designating him as a habitual felony offender. We affirm issues one and two, but find merit in his third issue. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for the trial court to strike the habitual felony offender designation.
The defendant’s conviction stems from a shooting incident outside of a park. The jury found the defendant guilty of two counts of first degree murder and one count of attempted first degree murder. Both at the conclusion of the State’s case and after the close of the evidence, the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing the State failed to prove premeditation. The court denied both motions.
The court sentenced the defendant to life sentences without parole for the two counts of first degree murder. Due to his use of a gun, the court sentenced the defendant to concurrent life sentences under section 775.087(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2016), the “10-20-Life” statute. For the third count of attempted first degree murder, the court sentenced the defendant to life with a twenty-year mandatory minimum term. The court designated the defendant a habitual felony offender on the two counts of first degree murder.
In his third issue, the defendant argues that the mandatory life sentences cannot be enhanced by designating him as a habitual felony offender under section 775.084(4)(a)1, Florida Statutes (2016). The State agrees that capital crimes cannot be enhanced under this statute.
We have de novo review. Willard v. State, 22 So.3d 864, 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
*292Capital crimes cannot be enhanced under the plain language of section 775.084(4)(a)1. Parrimon v. State, 644 So.2d 95, 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The highest degree of felony which may- be enhanced for a habitual felony offender- is a life felony or a felony of the first degree. § 775,084(4)(a)1, Florida Statutes (2016). Here, the defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder, which is a capital felony. He cannot be sentenced as a habitual felony offender for these offenses.
We therefore affirm his conviction and sentences, but reverse his designation as a habitual felony offender. We remand with directions to strike the designation of habitual felony offender for the first degree murder counts.
Affirmed-in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Taylor and Conner, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Willard v. State, 22 So. 3d 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Parrimon v. State, 644 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)