Gardener v. State
This text of 685 So. 2d 1025 (Gardener 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
Defendant appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an unlawful sentence. Upon the State’s proper confession of eiTor, we reverse and remand for resentencing. A trial court may not impose a minimum mandatory sentence when sentencing a defendant as a habitual felony offender rather than a habitual violent felony offender. See Lamont v. State, 597 So.2d 823, 829 (Fla. 3d DCA), approved in pertinent part, 610 So.2d 435, 439 (Fla.1992).
Upon remand, the trial court may impose any lawful sentence originally available and give defendant the option to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial. See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989).
Reversed 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
685 So. 2d 1025, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 78, 1997 WL 5173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardener-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.