From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tucker v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Mar 26, 1992
595 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1992)

Summary

remanding for reconsideration in light of Burdick because the record did not indicate whether the trial court believed that it could decline to impose a life sentence

Summary of this case from Johnson v. State

Opinion

No. 77854.

March 26, 1992.

Petition for review from the Circuit Court, Orange County, George A. Sprinkel, IV, J.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Michael S. Becker and Daniel J. Schafer, Asst. Public Defenders, Daytona Beach, for petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Nancy Ryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for respondent.


We review Tucker v. State, 576 So.2d 931 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), based on conflict jurisdiction.

Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

Tucker pled guilty to grand theft of a motor vehicle and nolo contendere to robbery with a firearm, a first-degree felony punishable by life imprisonment. Tucker was sentenced as an habitual felony offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989), to ten years for the grand theft and to life imprisonment with a minimum mandatory of three years for the armed robbery. Tucker seeks review of his sentence for the robbery offense, claiming that first-degree felonies punishable by life imprisonment are not subject to enhancement under the provisions of the habitual offender statute.

We decided that issue contrary to Tucker's position in Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 267 (Fla. 1992). However, we also held in Burdick that sentencing under the habitual offender statute is permissive, not mandatory.

In this case, the State argued at sentencing that a life sentence is mandatory under section 775.084(4)(a)(1). In sentencing Tucker, the trial court did not indicate whether it believed it could in fact decline to impose a life sentence.

Accordingly, we approve the opinion below but remand for the trial court to reconsider Tucker's sentence in light of our determination in Burdick that sentencing under the habitual offender statute is discretionary.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, C.J., and McDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.

OVERTON, J., dissents.


Summaries of

Tucker v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Mar 26, 1992
595 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1992)

remanding for reconsideration in light of Burdick because the record did not indicate whether the trial court believed that it could decline to impose a life sentence

Summary of this case from Johnson v. State

resentencing required where trial court did not indicate understanding that life sentence under § 775.084, Fla. Stat., was permissive, not mandatory

Summary of this case from Willford v. State
Case details for

Tucker v. State

Case Details

Full title:TIMOTHY E. TUCKER, PETITIONER, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Mar 26, 1992

Citations

595 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1992)

Citing Cases

Willford v. State

Affirmed. State v. Cotton, 595 So.2d 957 (Fla. 1992) ( approving Cotton v. State, 588 So.2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA…

Stewart v. State

We affirm the conviction, but reverse and remand appellant's habitual offender sentence because we do not…