CHARLES R. CHAPMAN
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 prior violation of probation in case number 1991-CF-2132 does not constitute a qualifying offense under the Violent Career Criminal statute because it is not an enumerated conviction.
[1] A violation of probation does not constitute an enumerated conviction under the Violent Career Criminal statute and therefore cannot serve as a qualifying predicate offen…
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 intelligence“The violation of probation in case number 1991-CF-2132 is not an enumerated conviction pursuant to the VCC statute.”
Court's basis for reversing the denial of the 3.800(a) motion
Chapman appealed the denial of a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion challenging his VCC sentence. He argued that his prior violation o…
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 Violent Career Criminal (Vcc) Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion, arguing, inter alia, that his Violent Career Criminal (VCC) sentence is illegal because his previous violation of probation, in case number 1991-CF-2132, is not a qualifying offense. The State makes no argument in opposition, asserting only that remand is required. We agree. The violation of probation in case number 1991-CF-2132 is not an enumerated conviction pursuant to the VCC statute. See § 775.084(1)(d), Fla. Stat. (2006); Butler v. State, 93 So. 3d 328, 329–30 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Accordingly, on this record, we reverse the denial as it pertains to case number 1991-CF-2132 with instructions that the trial court either grant relief or attach portions of the record conclusively refuting Appellant’s claim. We conclude that Appellant’s argument as to case number 1994-CF-483 is without merit and therefore affirm on that ground without further discussion.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED. WALLIS, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.