Bell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bell v. State

631 So. 2d 1140, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1213, 1994 WL 46926

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 18, 1994

DocketNo. 92-2312

StatusPublished

This text of 631 So. 2d 1140 (Bell v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. State, 631 So. 2d 1140, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1213, 1994 WL 46926 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

W. SHARP, Judge.

Bell appeals from sentences imposed following his conviction for armed robbery and his violations of probation for strong armed robbery and grand theft. Bell was sentenced [1141]*1141as an habitual offender to twenty years imprisonment for all three offenses, to be served concurrently. On appeal, Bell argues that the trial court erred in imposing habitual offender sentences for his violations of probation under Snead v. State, 616 So.2d 964 (Fla.1993). The state concedes error.

We affirm Bell’s convictions. We affirm the sentence for armed robbery, but vacate the sentences for robbery and theft imposed after violations of probation. See, e.g., Crabtree v. State, 624 So.2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (remanded for sentence to be corrected to show that it was for a first degree felony, rather than a life felony); Bray v. State, 586 So.2d 1353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (although it did not affect sentence, cause was remanded for correction of scoresheet); Dussault v. State, 578 So.2d 430 (Fla. 5th DCA), quashed on other grounds, 586 So.2d 1060 (Fla.1991) (defendant was entitled to have record corrected to rectify erroneous imposition of fifteen years probation for third degree felony, for which the maximum period of incarceration was only five years, despite the imposition of concurrent fifteen year probationary terms for other offenses). On remand, Bell must be sentenced pursuant to the guidelines on a non-habitual offender status for these two offenses.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED for resentencing.

PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

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

W. SHARP, Judge.

Bell appeals from sentences imposed following his conviction for armed robbery and his violations of probation for strong armed robbery and grand theft. Bell was sentenced [1141]*1141as an habitual offender to twenty years imprisonment for all three offenses, to be served concurrently. On appeal, Bell argues that the trial court erred in imposing habitual offender sentences for his violations of probation under Snead v. State, 616 So.2d 964 (Fla.1993). The state concedes error.

We affirm Bell’s convictions. We affirm the sentence for armed robbery, but vacate the sentences for robbery and theft imposed after violations of probation. See, e.g., Crabtree v. State, 624 So.2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (remanded for sentence to be corrected to show that it was for a first degree felony, rather than a life felony); Bray v. State, 586 So.2d 1353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (although it did not affect sentence, cause was remanded for correction of scoresheet); Dussault v. State, 578 So.2d 430 (Fla. 5th DCA), quashed on other grounds, 586 So.2d 1060 (Fla.1991) (defendant was entitled to have record corrected to rectify erroneous imposition of fifteen years probation for third degree felony, for which the maximum period of incarceration was only five years, despite the imposition of concurrent fifteen year probationary terms for other offenses). On remand, Bell must be sentenced pursuant to the guidelines on a non-habitual offender status for these two offenses.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED for resentencing.

PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

631 So. 2d 1140, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1213, 1994 WL 46926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

W. SHARP, Judge.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack