YISRAEL v. STATE, 4D10-1036. (2011)
Court: Court of Appeals of Florida
Number: inflco20110504210
Visitors: 7
Filed: May 04, 2011
Latest Update: May 04, 2011
Summary: PER CURIAM. Abraham Yisrael challenges the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand for further review of one point. Yisrael challenges the predicate offenses used to support his habitual offender sentence arguing that he was convicted of both on the same day, and therefore, the convictions are not sequential. See, e.g., State v. Richardson, 915 So.2d 86 (Fla. 2005); Beazley v. State, 18 So.3d 46 (Fl
Summary: PER CURIAM. Abraham Yisrael challenges the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand for further review of one point. Yisrael challenges the predicate offenses used to support his habitual offender sentence arguing that he was convicted of both on the same day, and therefore, the convictions are not sequential. See, e.g., State v. Richardson, 915 So.2d 86 (Fla. 2005); Beazley v. State, 18 So.3d 46 (Fla..
More
PER CURIAM.
Abraham Yisrael challenges the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand for further review of one point.
Yisrael challenges the predicate offenses used to support his habitual offender sentence arguing that he was convicted of both on the same day, and therefore, the convictions are not sequential. See, e.g., State v. Richardson, 915 So.2d 86 (Fla. 2005); Beazley v. State, 18 So.3d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Yisrael's previous motion did not raise this point. See Yisrael v. State, 993 So.2d 952 (Fla. 2008). Further, the record furnished to this court neither addresses nor refutes this claim. Consequently, we reverse and remand for the trial court to address this claim and to either grant relief or attach documentation to demonstrate that Yisrael qualified for habitual offender sentencing. We affirm the trial court's denial of the remaining claims.
WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Source: Leagle
