CHRISTOPHER JOHN COLE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2017-08-16
No. 3D17-1437
Before LAGOA, EMAS and SCALES, JJ.
225 So. 3d 938 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2017)

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.


Holding

The court held that the life sentences imposed for attempted first-degree murder were not illegal, but the appeal regarding the twenty-five year mandatory minimum sentences was moot.


Facts & Procedural History

Christopher John Cole appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. He argued that his life sentences and concurrent twenty-five y…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Christopher John Cole appeals frbm the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule ’ of - Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm'the order insofar as it determined that Cole’s life- sentences on counts nine' -and '"ten of the information (imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea) were not illegal. Cole was sentenced to life imprisonment for two counts of attempted first-degree murder,- during which Cole was alleged to have used a firearm, thus reclassifying the offenses from first-degree to life- felonies. See §’ 775.087(l)(a), Fla. Stat.'(1989).-Independently, and as a violent habitual felony ■ offender, Cole was subject to a miaximum sentence of life in prison for each of these offenses.' See § 775.084(4)(b)l„ Fla. Stat. (1989).

As to Cole’s claim that the twenty-five year mandatory minimum sentences (imposed concurrently as part of the life sentences on counts nine and ten) are illegal, we note that Cole has completed this portion of his sentence, and is already eligible for parole.1 See Cole v. State, 786 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001),.We therefore dismiss this portion of the appeal as moot. See, e.g., State v. Ortiz, 79 So.3d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Mathews v. State, 91 So.3d *939142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Maybin v. State, 884 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw