From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Jul 13, 2000
764 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2000)

Opinion

No. SC94703

Opinion filed July 13, 2000

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Direct Conflict, Fifth District — Case No. 5D97-2647, (Orange County).

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Stephanie H. Park, Assistant Public Defender, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, Florida, for Petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Belle B. Schumann and Wesley Heidt, Assistant Attorneys General, Daytona Beach, Florida, for Respondent.


We have for review Smith v. State, 721 So.2d 455 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), a decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal citing as authority its opinion in Maddox v. State, 708 So.2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), approved in part, disapproved in part, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S367 (Fla. May 11, 2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418, 420 (Fla. 1981).

Smith received a life sentence as a habitual offender for second-degree murder with a deadly weapon. Smith claims that his prior felony convictions were an insufficient predicate for habitualization because two of the convictions were entered on the same day and the third occurred after the date of the offense. See § 775.084(5), Fla. Stat. (1995) (providing that to be a "prior felony" for the purpose of habitualization, the offense must "have resulted in a conviction sentenced separately prior to the current offense and sentenced separately from any other felony conviction that is to be counted as a prior felony"); Rhodes v. State, 704 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (stating that in order to constitute a prior offense for purposes of habitualization, the offense must have been committed prior to the offense resulting in the enhanced sentence). For the reasons expressed in our opinion in Maddox, we find that this constitutes a fundamental sentencing error that can be raised on direct appeal during the window period discussed in Maddox. We therefore quash the decision below and remand for further proceedings in light of Maddox.

It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Smith v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Jul 13, 2000
764 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2000)
Case details for

Smith v. State

Case Details

Full title:LEOTIS M. SMITH, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Jul 13, 2000

Citations

764 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2000)

Citing Cases

Tyson v. State

In support, Tyson noted that “to be a ‘prior felony’ for the purpose of habitualization, the offense must…

Markens v. State

Section 775.084(5), Florida Statutes (1993), requires sequential convictions to qualify for habitual offender…