Bey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bey v. State

695 So. 2d 1268, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6708, 1997 WL 330623

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 18, 1997

DocketNo. 96-2381

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 695 So. 2d 1268 (Bey 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

Bey v. State, 695 So. 2d 1268, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6708, 1997 WL 330623 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PARIENTE, Judge.

We are compelled to reverse defendant’s habitual offender sentence based on the authority of King v. State, 681 So.2d 1136 (Fla.1996). The trial court did not have the benefit of King when it imposed a habitual offender sentence after finding defendant violated his probation.

Just as in King, the trial court here imposed a guidelines sentence at the time of the original sentencing, declining the state’s request to sentence defendant as a habitual felony offender. After serving the imprisonment portion of his sentence, defendant violated his probation. Because defendant was not originally sentenced as a habitual offender, the trial court could not sentence him as a habitual offender upon revocation of probation. Id. at 1140.

Accordingly, the sentence in this case is vacated and the cause remanded for the trial court to impose a sentence within the guidelines.

GLICKSTEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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