DARRIAL MARION HALL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred in reclassifying a third-degree felony to a second-degree felony based on an erroneous belief about habitual offender status.
Hall was convicted of carrying a concealed firearm, a third-degree felony. The prosecutor and trial court erroneously believed that notice of habitual…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Felony Reclassification cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, GUYTE P., Jr. (Ret.), Associate Judge.
Hall appeals his conviction for carrying a concealed firearm. He contends the trial court erred in reclassifying his crime from a third degree felony to a second degree felony in his sentencing guidelines score-sheet. We agree and reverse.
Carrying a concealed firearm is a third degree felony. Section 790.01(2), Florida Statutes (1983). The prosecutor below, erroneously believing that a notice of habitual offender status under Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1983), allowed the third degree felony to be reclassified upward to a second degree felony, successfully urged that view upon the trial court. Such was error. Cuthbert v. State, 459 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Dominguez v. State, 461 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). (We note that the prosecution did not present evidence to show that Hall was an habitual offender and the trial court did not make a direct finding of such but that is irrelevant to our ruling here.)
The State citing Dailey v. State, 471 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), contends that since objection to the sentencing was not made at the time of sentencing the issue may not be raised on appeal. We disagree. Here the error in reclassifying the offense is apparent from the record.
REVERSED.
ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jennings v. State, 498 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…language clearly reveals that only the penalty is enhanced, i.e., in terms of years. The degree of offense remains the same. See Cuthbert v. State, 459 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), pet. for rev. denied 467 So. 2d 1000 (Fla.1985); Hall v. State, 483 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). However on its face, § 775.0845, Florida Statutes (1985), the mask statute, reveals language that distinguishes it from the habitual offender statute. The language of the mask statute requires that each offense, i.e., misdemeano…
-
Watson v. Truman Hahn, 664 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…llemi v. Rorabeck, 629 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Marsella v. Crapps, 529 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Steve Hull Chevrolet, Inc., 513 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Affordable Homes v. Devil’s Run, Ltd., 483 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). . Bell v. Bailey, 639 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); McCone v. Butts, 616 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Edenfield v. Martin County, 583 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), approved, 609 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1992); Wharton v. The Fir…
Authorities Cited
- Dailey v. State, 471 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Cuthbert v. State, 459 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Dominguez v. State, 461 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)