LOUGENS LOUIS
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 3d DCA | 2024-07-03
No. 2023-2021
Scales, J., Lindsey, J., Miller, J., Jean, J.
2024 FL 8031 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2024)

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.

Holding

A charging document that fails to allege facts necessary to support an enhanced sentence for discharging a firearm during the commission of a felony is not subject to correction under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).

Headnotes

[1] A charging document's failure to allege facts necessary to support an enhanced sentence under Florida Statute § 775.087(2)(a)2 constitutes a technical deficiency in the s…

Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Key Quotes

“[A] claim that the charging document did not allege the facts necessary to support [the] enhanced sentence is precisely the type of technical deficiency in the sentencing procedure that the supreme court held is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion.”

Citation to Cabrera v. State, 352 So. 3d 512, 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)
Facts & Procedural History

Lougens Louis was convicted of a felony and received an enhanced sentence under Florida Statute § 775.087(2)(a)2 for discharging a firearm during the …

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.

Opinion of the Court
Miller

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed July 3, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-2021 Lower Tribunal No. F11-30699A ________________

Lougens Louis, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lody Jean, Judge.

Lougens Louis, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Chief Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Footnotes
2 Affirmed. See § 775.087(2)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2011) (“Any person who is convicted of a felony or an attempt to commit a felony . . . regardless of whether the use of a weapon is an element of the felony, and during the course of the commission of the felony such person discharged a ‘firearm’ or ‘destructive device’ . . . shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 20 years.”); see also Martinez v. State, 211 So. 3d 989, 991 (Fla. 2017) (affirming appellate court’s holding that charging document, which was allegedly defective for not providing sufficient notice of potential punishment of “actual possession of a firearm” as opposed to “carr[ying] a firearm,” did not constitute illegal sentence subject to correction under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a)); Cabrera v. State, 352 So. 3d 512, 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (“[A] claim that the charging document did not allege the facts necessary to support [the] enhanced sentence is precisely the type of technical deficiency in the sentencing procedure that the supreme court held is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion.”); Brooks v. State, 969 So. 2d 238, 243 (Fla. 2007) (holding “for motions filed under rule 3.800(a), . . . if the trial court could have imposed the same sentence using a correct scoresheet, any error was harmless”).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw