Cunningham v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cunningham v. State

648 So. 2d 328, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 457, 1995 WL 25312

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 25, 1995

DocketNo. 93-2232

StatusPublished

This text of 648 So. 2d 328 (Cunningham 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

Cunningham v. State, 648 So. 2d 328, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 457, 1995 WL 25312 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse, in part, a final order on Appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief. There is no record support for Appellant’s sentence as a habitual violent offender. It is undisputed that Appellant, sentenced pursuant to a plea, did not agree to be sentenced as a habitual violent offender. Therefore, the sentence imposing a minimum mandatory term is in error. On remand, the trial court need not conduct a resentencing, but need only strike the minimum mandatory portion of Appellant’s sentence and resentence Appellant as a habitual offender. There is support in the record for Appellant’s sentence as a habitual offender. See Chaison v. State, 608 So.2d 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), rev. denied, 617 So.2d 318 (Fla.1993).

In all other respects, the final order of the trial court is affirmed both as to the judgment and sentence.

STONE, POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse, in part, a final order on Appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief. There is no record support for Appellant’s sentence as a habitual violent offender. It is undisputed that Appellant, sentenced pursuant to a plea, did not agree to be sentenced as a habitual violent offender. Therefore, the sentence imposing a minimum mandatory term is in error. On remand, the trial court need not conduct a resentencing, but need only strike the minimum mandatory portion of Appellant’s sentence and resentence Appellant as a habitual offender. There is support in the record for Appellant’s sentence as a habitual offender. See Chaison v. State, 608 So.2d 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), rev. denied, 617 So.2d 318 (Fla.1993).

In all other respects, the final order of the trial court is affirmed both as to the judgment and sentence.

STONE, POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

648 So. 2d 328, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 457, 1995 WL 25312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack