JEFFREY S. MINCEY, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Appellant's sentence as a habitual felony offender was reversed because his prior convictions were all entered on the same day and therefore did not qualify as sequential convictions required for habitualization.
Prior convictions entered on the same day cannot be considered sequential convictions for purposes of designating a defendant as a habitual felony offender.
[1] Prior convictions entered on the same day as part of the same sentencing proceeding cannot qualify as sequential convictions for habitual felony offender designation unde…
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“Although the sentencing for separate convictions arising out of unrelated crimes can take place on the same day, the sentences cannot be part of same sentencing proceeding in order to be considered "sequential" for purposes of habitualization”
Court explaining the requirement that sequential convictions must not be part of the same sentencing proceeding
Jeffrey S. Mincey was designated a habitual felony offender based on prior convictions that were all entered on the same day.…
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 Sequential Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey S. Mincey appeals from the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence. He argues that he was improperly designated as a habitual felony offender because his prior convictions used for such designation did not qualify as sequential convictions as they were all entered on the same day. See Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246, 1250 (Fla.2001) (“[AJlthough the sentencing for separate convictions arising out of unrelated crimes can take place on the same day, the sentences cannot be part of same sentencing proceeding” in order to be considered “sequential” for purposes of habitualization) (citation omitted); Walker v. State, 842 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Warner v. State, 798 So. 2d 885, 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
We reverse the summary denial of Min-cey’s motion and remand for re-sentencing. We note the state’s reference to a 1989 “sentence” of probation, see State v. Richardson, 915 So. 2d 86 (Fla.2005), but see no supporting documents associated with that predicate. On remand, the state may again seek sentencing as a habitual felony offender, subject to evidence of satisfactory predicate convictions. See Rich v. State, 814 So. 2d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Cameron v. State, 807 So. 2d 746, 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Wainer, 798 So. 2d at 885.
SHAHOOD, C.J., POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2001)
- State v. Erick Richardson, 915 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2005)
- Cameron v. State, 807 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Rich v. State, 814 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Wainer v. State, 798 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Pleas v. State, 842 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Walker v. State, 842 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)