Gardener v. State

685 So. 2d 1025, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 78, 1997 WL 5173
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 8, 1997
DocketNo. 96-2029
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

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.

Bluebook
Gardener v. State, 685 So. 2d 1025, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 78, 1997 WL 5173 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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

Gardener v. State
736 So. 2d 158 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
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.