McMurtry v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McMurtry v. State

907 So. 2d 1266, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 12026, 2005 WL 1818067

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 3, 2005

DocketNo. 3D05-1217

StatusPublished

This text of 907 So. 2d 1266 (McMurtry 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

McMurtry v. State, 907 So. 2d 1266, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 12026, 2005 WL 1818067 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ROTHENBERG, Judge.

The defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. We affirm. The defendant was sentenced as a habitual violent offender. Contrary to the defendant’s assertion, under section 775.081(b), Florida Statutes (1995), only one qualifying prior conviction was needed in order to sentence him as a habitual violent offender. See Fletcher v. State, 892 So.2d 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Hall v. State, 821 So.2d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). As the defendant concedes in his motion that he was previously found guilty of armed robbery in case number 88^44496, and armed robbery in case number 88-44497, and either conviction could have served as a qualifying offense for the purposes of the defendant’s sentence as a habitual violent offender in the instant case, we conclude that the defendant’s claim in this appeal is without merit.

Affirmed.

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

ROTHENBERG, Judge.

The defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. We affirm. The defendant was sentenced as a habitual violent offender. Contrary to the defendant’s assertion, under section 775.081(b), Florida Statutes (1995), only one qualifying prior conviction was needed in order to sentence him as a habitual violent offender. See Fletcher v. State, 892 So.2d 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Hall v. State, 821 So.2d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). As the defendant concedes in his motion that he was previously found guilty of armed robbery in case number 88^44496, and armed robbery in case number 88-44497, and either conviction could have served as a qualifying offense for the purposes of the defendant’s sentence as a habitual violent offender in the instant case, we conclude that the defendant’s claim in this appeal is without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

907 So. 2d 1266, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 12026, 2005 WL 1818067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmurtry-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack