CURRY LAMONT HAWKINS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A defendant is not entitled to resentencing on an armed robbery conviction based on Erlinger because that decision is not retroactive to sentences already final when Erlinger issued, and multi-count sentencing package arguments are foreclosed by binding precedent.
[1] A Supreme Court decision establishing new constitutional requirements for sentencing is not retroactively applicable to sentences that became final before the decision wa…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHawkins was convicted of armed robbery and other crimes and received a life sentence for armed robbery. A 2023 postconviction order vacated his life s…
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
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed August 26, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D23-0292 Lower Tribunal No. F97-11753
Curry Lamont Hawkins, Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Altfield, Judge.
Daniel J. Tibbitt, P.A., and Daniel J. Tibbitt, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SCALES, C.J., and MILLER and REBULL, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Curry Lamont Hawkins appeals the trial court's March 4, 2025 order ("Order") granting in part, and denying in part, Hawkins's motion to correct sentencing errors, filed below under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).¹ Hawkins challenges only that aspect of the Order denying his rule 3.800(b) motion's claims that he is entitled to be resentenced on his conviction for armed robbery. According to Hawkins, he is entitled to relief because the life sentence imposed for armed robbery purportedly resulted from the trial court, rather than a jury, finding that Hawkins qualified as a habitual felony offender, in violation of Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024) and/or because his armed robbery sentence was part of a multicount sentencing package with other crimes that were properly resentenced in the Order.² We disagree with Hawkins on both grounds and affirm.³
We affirm the denial of Hawkins's Erlinger claim because Erlinger is not retroactive to a sentence that was already final at the time Erlinger issued. See Wainwright v. State, 411 So. 3d 392, 399 (Fla. 2025). We affirm the denial of Hawkins's multi-count sentencing package argument because, as Hawkins properly and commendably concedes, we are bound by this Court's decision in Reynolds v. State, 116 So. 3d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), that squarely rejected a similar sentencing package argument. See also Phillips v. State, 416 So. 3d 336, 339-40, 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022), rev. granted, SC2023-0073 (Fla. July 25, 2024) (citing Reynolds with approval and rejecting a similar multi-count sentencing package argument, and certifying a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court with respect to the sentencing argument that is currently pending review).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (U.S. 2024)
- Wainwright v. State, 411 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 2025)
- Piesus Reynolds v. State, 116 So. 3d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Perry v. State, 849 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)