Floyd v. State
This text of 807 So. 2d 93 (Floyd 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
Leroy FLOYD, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
*94 Leroy Floyd, Indiantown, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
SHARP, W., J.
Floyd appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He seeks to challenge his 1992 sentences for robbery and kidnapping on the ground he should not have received consecutive sentences because both crimes arose out of the same episode. This claim requires a factual determination in this case, and cannot be determined from the face of the record. Thus it is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion proceeding. See Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 2001).
Floyd's additional claim that his life sentence for kidnapping was unauthorized because a sentence for a life felony cannot be enhanced under the habitual offender statute is without merit. His kidnapping conviction was a first degree felony, not a life felony. See § 787.01(2), Fla. Stat.
AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON, C.J., and PLEUS, J., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
807 So. 2d 93, 2002 WL 27066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/floyd-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.