Filed: Feb. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED ASHLEY BISHOP, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-2497 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed February 16, 2018 3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Leticia J. Marques, Judge. Ashley Bishop, Sanderson, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beac
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED ASHLEY BISHOP, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-2497 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed February 16, 2018 3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Leticia J. Marques, Judge. Ashley Bishop, Sanderson, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach..
More
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
ASHLEY BISHOP,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D17-2497
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed February 16, 2018
3.800 Appeal from the Circuit
Court for Orange County,
Leticia J. Marques, Judge.
Ashley Bishop, Sanderson, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire,
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona
Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Ashley Bishop, appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an
illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his rule
3.800(a) motion, Appellant alleged that the court erred in sentencing him upon a second
violation of probation to twenty years as an habitual felony offender without re-designating
him an HFO. The State properly concedes error in that the trial court’s record
attachments do not show whether there was a re-designation of Appellant’s HFO status
during Appellant’s 2014 VOP resentencing and/or the current 2016 VOP resentencing.
See State v. Akins,
69 So. 3d 261 (Fla. 2011) (holding that HFO designation must be
restated at each resentencing to be applied); Wighard v. State,
71 So. 3d 170 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2011) (applying Akins and holding that HFO designation was lost when it was not
restated at VOP hearing). Absent an HFO designation, Appellant’s twenty-year sentence
exceeds the statutory maximum for a second-degree felony. Accordingly, we reverse
and remand this cause for the trial court to either attach refuting records or resentence
Appellant to a legal, non-HFO sentence.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
2