Wilson v. State

596 So. 2d 166, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 3934, 1992 WL 67921
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Wilson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 566 So. 2d 36
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 6, 1992·No. No. 90-3648·Published

Opinion

ERVIN, Judge.

We affirm without comment appellant’s convictions for armed robbery and aggravated assault, but reverse his sentence as a habitual offender and remand for resen-tencing. At the sentencing hearing, based upon evidence produced by the state, the court designated Wilson a habitual violent felony offender and, finding that it had no discretion over the length of the sentence, imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a 15-year mandatory minimum term for the armed robbery offense, concurrent with a ten-year sentence for the aggravated assault offense. In Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 267 (Fla.1992), the supreme court held that habitual offender sentencing under Section 775.084(4)(b)(1), Florida Statutes (1989), is permissive rather than mandatory; thus the trial court has the discretion to impose any sentence up to life imprisonment for a first-degree felony.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM appellant’s conviction, REVERSE his life sentence under section 775.084(4)(b)(l), and REMAND for resentencing. We note that in exercising its discretion on remand, the trial court may impose the same sentence which it initially imposed.

BOOTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

Wilson v. State, 596 So. 2d 166, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 3934, 1992 WL 67921 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

596 So. 2d 166 (Wilson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Burdick v. State
594 So. 2d 267 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)