GRADY ROBINSON A/K/A GRADDY ROBBINSON, 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.
Grady Robinson appealed a trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, challenging his habitual felony offender designation on the ground that he had only one prior non-sequential felony conviction. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the certified convictions in the record demonstrated Robinson had multiple prior felony convictions spanning several years, satisfying the statutory requirements for habitual felony offender status.
The habitual felony offender sentence was legal and properly imposed. The certified convictions in the record conclusively established that Robinson had multiple prior felony convictions spanning years, satisfying all statutory requirements for habitual felony offender designation under Florida Statute § 775.084(1)(a).
[1] A defendant qualifies as a habitual felony offender if convicted of two or more felonies, the current felony was committed within five years of the last prior felony conv…
[2] Certified convictions showing multiple prior felony judgments conclusively refute a claim that a defendant was illegally sentenced as a habitual felony offender.
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“to qualify as an "habitual felony offender," the defendant must have "been convicted of any combination of two or more felonies in this state or other qualified offenses," "[t]he felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced was committed within 5 years of the date of the conviction of the last prior felony or other qualified offense of which he was convicted," and the "felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced, and one of the two prior felony convictions, is not a violation of § 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance"”
Establishes the statutory requirements for habitual felony offender designation under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt Robinson's 1995 sentencing hearing for a burglary conviction, the state introduced fourteen certified convictions showing prior convictions includi…
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 Prior Felony Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant Grady Robinson appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. Robinson contends his habitual felony offender sentence was illegal because he was convicted of only one prior non-sequential felony. See § 775.084(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1994) (to qualify as an “habitual felony offender,” the defendant must have “been convicted of any combination of two or more felonies in this state or other qualified offenses,” “[t]he felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced was committed within 5 years of the date of the conviction of the last prior felony or other qualified; offense of which he was convicted,” and the “felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced, and one of the two prior felony convictions, is not a violation of § 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance”).
We affirm for the reasons explained in the trial court’s detailed order. At Robinson’s 1995 sentencing hearing in this case, the state introduced fourteen certified convictions showing that in the years before this most recent burglary conviction, he had been convicted of, and sentenced for (among other crimes): battery on a law enforcement officer in 1993; false- imprisonment and selling controlled' substances in 1992; arson in 1992; burglary in 1989; burglary in 1988; another burglary in 1988; burglary in 1987; and burglary and grand theft in 1985. These -certified convictions attached to the trial court’s order conclusively refute Robinson’s claim that he was illegally sentenced as an habitual felony offender. See McBride v. State, 665 So.2d 329, 330 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“[T]he defendant now challenges his sentences, arguing that he was not eligible for. habitual offender status because,.at the .time of the December . 3, 1990 sentencing, he had only one prior felony conviction. The record before us clearly, refutes this .argument. In this regard, the attachments to the trial.court’s order denying the defendant’s 3.800 motion evidence three prior felony judgments.-... Since defendant had three prior felony convictions, he was properly sentenced as an habitual offender.”).
Affirmed.