MAURICE LINDSEY v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA
This text of MAURICE LINDSEY v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA (MAURICE LINDSEY v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA) 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
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed October 6, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-0836 Lower Tribunal Nos. F05-31667A, F05-31668A ________________
Maurice Lindsey, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez, Judge.
Maurice Lindsey, in proper person.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before HENDON, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.
MILLER, J. Appellant, Maurice Lindsey, challenges an order denying his motion to
correct an illegal sentence. As he was properly credited for the ten-year
minimum mandatory he served upon his original conviction, we find no merit
in the claim that the sentence imposed upon revocation of probation violated
his constitutional safeguards against double jeopardy. See § 921.0017, Fla.
Stat. (2021) (providing that when probation is revoked, the sentencing court
shall order credit for time served in state prison or county jail, upon
recommitment to the Department of Corrections, and “shall direct the
Department of Corrections to compute and apply credit” for prior prison
credit); § 948.06(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (upon violation of probation, the sentencing
judge may “impose any sentence which it might have originally imposed
before placing the probationer or offender on probation”); § 775.087(2)(a)1.,
Fla. Stat. (“Any person who is convicted of a felony . . . and the conviction
was for: . . . [r]obbery . . . and during the commission of the offense, such
person actually possessed a ‘firearm’ or ‘destructive device’ as those terms
are defined in s[ection] 790.001, shall be sentenced to a minimum term of
imprisonment of [ten] years.”); see also Martinez v. State, 211 So. 3d 989,
991 (Fla. 2017) (sentencing error that can be corrected under rule 3.800(a)
must be apparent from face of original record). Accordingly, we affirm.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
MAURICE LINDSEY v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maurice-lindsey-v-the-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2021.