Gray v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gray v. State

837 So. 2d 612, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1992, 2003 WL 365988

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 21, 2003

DocketNo. 5D02-3964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 837 So. 2d 612 (Gray 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

Gray v. State, 837 So. 2d 612, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1992, 2003 WL 365988 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

SHARP, W., J.

We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of Gray’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) which asserts he was inappropriately sentenced as an habitual offender. At the time Gray was sentenced in 1985 for a crime committed in 1982, only one prior felony conviction was required in order for the trial court to classify a defendant as an habitual offender. See § 775.084(l)(a)l.a., Fla. Stat. (1981).

An habitual offender sentence can be corrected in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding if the error is apparent on the face of the record. See Bover v. State, 797 So.2d 1246 (Fla.2001). Gray argues here that the pri- or felony conviction used in this case to merit his habitual offender sentence was attempted burglary of a structure and since the structure was unoccupied, the crime was a misdemeanor of the first degree and not a felony. See §§ 810.02(3); 777.04(4), Fla. Stat. (1981). However, in making its habitual offender findings, the sentencing court did not specify whether the structure was occupied. The sentencing court, however, found that defendant had been convicted of the prior felony of attempted burglary of a structure. Thus it is not clear on the face of this record that Gray was improperly classified as an habitual offender.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

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

SHARP, W., J.

We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of Gray’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) which asserts he was inappropriately sentenced as an habitual offender. At the time Gray was sentenced in 1985 for a crime committed in 1982, only one prior felony conviction was required in order for the trial court to classify a defendant as an habitual offender. See § 775.084(l)(a)l.a., Fla. Stat. (1981).

An habitual offender sentence can be corrected in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding if the error is apparent on the face of the record. See Bover v. State, 797 So.2d 1246 (Fla.2001). Gray argues here that the pri- or felony conviction used in this case to merit his habitual offender sentence was attempted burglary of a structure and since the structure was unoccupied, the crime was a misdemeanor of the first degree and not a felony. See §§ 810.02(3); 777.04(4), Fla. Stat. (1981). However, in making its habitual offender findings, the sentencing court did not specify whether the structure was occupied. The sentencing court, however, found that defendant had been convicted of the prior felony of attempted burglary of a structure. Thus it is not clear on the face of this record that Gray was improperly classified as an habitual offender.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

837 So. 2d 612, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1992, 2003 WL 365988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack