KENDALL DURAND
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 cannot challenge a sentence that fails to impose mandatory minimum sentences required by statute because any illegality inures to the defendant's benefit.
[1] A defendant cannot challenge as illegal a sentence that fails to impose mandatory minimum sentences because any illegality resulting from omission of such minimums inures…
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 intelligenceDurand was convicted of first-degree murder with a firearm and attempted first-degree murder with a firearm and sentenced to two consecutive life sent…
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 Firearm Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Ernest A. Kollra Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 96-015506CF10A.
Kendall Durand, Mayo, pro se. No appearance required for appellee. PER CURIAM.
Kendall Durand appeals an order denying his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. Durand was convicted of first-degree murder with a firearm and attempted first-degree murder with a firearm and was sentenced to two consecutive terms of life in prison. In his rule 3.800(a) motion, he argued that his sentences are illegal because the court failed to impose the three-year mandatory minimum sentences required by section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1996), for possession of a firearm.
We affirm the order denying Durand’s motion because any illegality in failing to impose the mandatory minimum sentences is in his favor and cannot be challenged. Mitchell v. State, No. 4D20-860, 2020 WL 6154241, at *2 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 21, 2020); see also Earl v. State, 276 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), rev. granted, No. SC19-1506, 2019 WL 6490732 (Fla. Dec. 3, 2019). We again certify conflict with Solomon v. State, 254 So. 3d 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018), Burks v. State, 237 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), and Vargas v. State, 188 So. 3d 915 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).
Affirmed; conflict certified.
2
LEVINE, C.J, GROSS and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Elliott Vargas v. State, 188 So. 3d 915 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
- Solomon v. State, 254 So. 3d 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)