Glover v. State, 91-882

Decision Date15 April 1992
Docket NumberNo. 91-882,91-882
Citation596 So.2d 1258
PartiesRobert GLOVER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. 596 So.2d 1258, 17 Fla. L. Week. D1019
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Nancy Daniels, Public Defender, Nancy L. Showalter, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Andrea D. England, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

KAHN, Judge.

Appellant Robert Glover takes issue with his habitual offender sentences for 1) conviction of attempted first degree murder with a firearm, a life felony, and 2) conviction of robbery with a firearm, a first degree felony punishable by a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment.

This court has previously held that section 775.084, Florida Statutes, makes no provision for habitual offender enhancement of a life felony. Johnson v. State, 568 So.2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Gholston v. State, 589 So.2d 307 (Fla.1991). The Third District, in Lamont v. State, 17 F.L.W. D507, --- So.2d ---- (Fla. 3d DCA, en banc Feb. 18, 1992), has disagreed. The Lamont court reasoned that merely because the sentencing provisions of the habitual offender statute, sections 775.084(4)(a) and (b), do not specifically provide for enhanced sentencing where the subject conviction is a life felony, the act as a whole does apply to life felonies, since the habitual offender criteria of section 775.084(1) may apply to any felony conviction, regardless of degree, so long as the offender otherwise meets the criteria set out in the statute. The Lamont court also points to subsection 4(e) of the statute, providing that a habitual felony offender sentence is not subject to the sentencing guidelines, Chapter 921, Florida Statutes, to parole, Chapter 947, Florida Statutes, nor to gain time granted by the Department of Corrections, with the exception of a limited amount of incentive gain time. Nothing in the statute indicates that subsection 4(e) would not apply to a life felon, properly habitualized under section 775.084(1). This argument is not altogether lacking in appeal. We must, however, follow the decisions of this court, and accordingly we vacate Glover's habitual offender sentence for a life felony and remand this portion of the case to the trial court for resentencing.

As to the first degree felony punishable by a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment, the trial court correctly sentenced appellant under the habitual offender statute. Burdick v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Lee v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 12, 1992
    ...not apply to life felonies, we fail to see the logic of the legislative intent it ascribes to the 1975 enactment. In Glover v. State, 596 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), we noted that the argument advanced in Lamont "is not altogether lacking in appeal," but followed our decisions in Gholst......
  • Toranzo v. State, 91-1787
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 22, 1992
    ...held that section 775.084, Florida Statutes, makes no provision for habitual offender enhancement of a life felony. Glover v. State, 596 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Gholston v. State, 589 So.2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), approved 611 So.2d 1224 (Fla.1992); Johnson v. State, 568 So.2d 519 ......
  • Lamont v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • December 24, 1992
    ...but certified its decision as being in conflict with every other district court to address the issue. See e.g. Glover v. State, 596 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (life felonies not subject to enhanced sentencing under the habitual offender statute); McKinney v. State, 585 So.2d 318 (Fla. 2......
  • Knight v. State, 1D99-0529.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 6, 2000
    ...to life felonies, which at the time Knight committed his offenses did not qualify for habitual offender treatment. See Glover v. State, 596 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We therefore vacate the sentences for these two offenses and direct the trial court to resentence Knight as to these tw......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT