Bailey v. State

699 So. 2d 1047, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11219, 1997 WL 614726
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Bailey v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 717 So. 2d 1096
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 8, 1997·No. No. 96-4069·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse appellant’s sentence on count III, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, because it exceeds the maximum sentence for a non-habitual offender on a second degree felony. Although it appears from the sentencing hearing that the court intended to sentence appellant as a violent habitual offender on count III, the written sentencing order does not so provide. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to conform its written order to its oral pronouncement. Although it is probably unnecessary for us to do so, we remind the trial court that it cannot, on remand, include the mandatory minimum sentence of ten years for a second degree felony by a habitual violent offender because that was not orally imposed. Hill v. State, 652 So.2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

GLICKSTEIN, KLEIN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bailey v. State, 699 So. 2d 1047, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11219, 1997 WL 614726 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

699 So. 2d 1047 (Bailey v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hill v. State
652 So. 2d 904 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)