ASHLEY BISHOP
v.
STATE
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.
An HFO designation must be restated at each resentencing to be legally applied, and a sentence imposed as an HFO without such re-designation exceeds the statutory maximum.
[1] A habitual felony offender designation must be restated at each resentencing to remain applicable.
[2] A habitual felony offender designation is lost if it is not restated at a subsequent sentencing hearing, such as a violation of probation hearing.
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“HFO designation must be restated at each resentencing to be applied”
Court citing State v. Akins and Wighard v. State to establish the legal requirement
Ashley Bishop was sentenced to twenty years as a habitual felony offender on a second violation of probation. The trial court's record did not show wh…
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
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED ASHLEY BISHOP, Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D17-2497 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed February 16, 2018 3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Leticia J. Marques, Judge.
Ashley Bishop, Sanderson, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Ashley Bishop, appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his rule
3.800(a) motion, Appellant alleged that the court erred in sentencing him upon a second violation of probation to twenty years as an habitual felony offender without re-designating him an HFO. The State properly concedes error in that the trial court’s record attachments do not show whether there was a re-designation of Appellant’s HFO status during Appellant’s 2014 VOP resentencing and/or the current 2016 VOP resentencing.
See State v. Akins, 69 So. 3d 261 (Fla. 2011) (holding that HFO designation must be restated at each resentencing to be applied); Wighard v. State, 71 So. 3d 170 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2011) (applying Akins and holding that HFO designation was lost when it was not restated at VOP hearing). Absent an HFO designation, Appellant’s twenty-year sentence exceeds the statutory maximum for a second-degree felony. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause for the trial court to either attach refuting records or resentence
Appellant to a legal, non-HFO sentence.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Akins, 69 So. 3d 261 (Fla. 2011)
- Wighard v. State, 71 So. 3d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)