Boyce v. State
This text of 202 So. 3d 456 (Boyce 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.
Opinion
The appellant challenges the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse, remand the denial of the motion to the extent that the appellant challenges his ten-year minimum mandatory term imposed for count I pursuant to section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes, for actually possessing a firearm, and order the trial court to strike that portion of the sentence. See State v. Overfelt, 457 So.2d 1385 (Fla.1984) (requiring a jury finding of actual possession to justify imposition of the minimum mandatory sentence pursuant to section 775.087(2)); Arnett v. State, 128 So.3d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that minimum mandatory for possessing firearm was illegal where defendant was not charged with being in “actual possession” of the firearm). We affirm the denial of the appellant’s remaining challenges to his sentences.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with directions.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
202 So. 3d 456, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 15935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyce-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.