Hansbrough v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hansbrough v. State

523 So. 2d 1264, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1041, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1715, 1988 WL 37845

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 28, 1988

DocketNo. 88-16

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 523 So. 2d 1264 (Hansbrough 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

Hansbrough v. State, 523 So. 2d 1264, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1041, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1715, 1988 WL 37845 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

COBB, Judge.

Hansbrough was convicted of a third-degree felony and a first-degree misdemean- or. His presumptive guideline sentence was two-and-a-half to three-and-a-half years. At sentencing, in January, 1986, the trial court determined him to be an habitual offender and imposed a ten-year enhanced sentence. The only reason given for departure was the habitual offender determination. Hansbrough appeals from the denial of a motion to correct his sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) based on the trial court’s use of the habitual offender determination to exceed the guidelines.

Habitual offender status is not a clear and convincing reason for departure. Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986). A departure sentence rendered improper by Whitehead is subject to correction via a post-conviction motion to correct sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) or a post-conviction motion to vacate sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Early v. State, 516 So.2d 24, 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Accordingly, we reverse Hansbrough’s sentence and remand for imposition of a guideline sentence pursuant to Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SHARP, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.

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

COBB, Judge.

Hansbrough was convicted of a third-degree felony and a first-degree misdemean- or. His presumptive guideline sentence was two-and-a-half to three-and-a-half years. At sentencing, in January, 1986, the trial court determined him to be an habitual offender and imposed a ten-year enhanced sentence. The only reason given for departure was the habitual offender determination. Hansbrough appeals from the denial of a motion to correct his sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) based on the trial court’s use of the habitual offender determination to exceed the guidelines.

Habitual offender status is not a clear and convincing reason for departure. Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986). A departure sentence rendered improper by Whitehead is subject to correction via a post-conviction motion to correct sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) or a post-conviction motion to vacate sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Early v. State, 516 So.2d 24, 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Accordingly, we reverse Hansbrough’s sentence and remand for imposition of a guideline sentence pursuant to Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SHARP, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

523 So. 2d 1264, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1041, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1715, 1988 WL 37845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hansbrough-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack