Tucker v. State
| Decision Date | 26 March 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 77854,77854 |
| Citation | 595 So.2d 956 |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Weekly S204 Timothy E. TUCKER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Michael S. Becker and Daniel J. Schafer, Asst. Public Defenders, Daytona Beach, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Nancy Ryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for respondent.
We review Tucker v. State, 576 So.2d 931 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), based on conflict jurisdiction. 1
Tucker pled guilty to grand theft of a motor vehicle and nolo contendere to robbery with a firearm, a first-degree felony punishable by life imprisonment. Tucker was sentenced as an habitual felony offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989), to ten years for the grand theft and to life imprisonment with a minimum mandatory of three years for the armed robbery. Tucker seeks review of his sentence for the robbery offense, claiming that first-degree felonies punishable by life imprisonment are not subject to enhancement under the provisions of the habitual offender statute.
We decided that issue contrary to Tucker's position in Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 267 (Fla.1992). However, we also held in Burdick that sentencing under the habitual offender statute is permissive, not mandatory.
In this case, the State argued at sentencing that a life sentence is mandatory under section 775.084(4)(a)(1). In sentencing Tucker, the trial court did not indicate whether it believed it could in fact decline to impose a life sentence.
Accordingly, we approve the opinion below but remand for the trial court to reconsider Tucker's sentence in light of our determination in Burdick that sentencing under the habitual offender statute is discretionary.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. State, 97-2235
... ... The earliest case holding that a sentence for a life felony could not be habitualized appears to be Hall v. State, 510 So.2d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), rev. denied, 519 So.2d 987 (Fla.1988). This court agreed in Tucker v. State, 576 So.2d 931 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), approved, 595 So.2d 956 (Fla.1992). Davis and Callaway were not decided until 1995, so defendant had a minimum of three years in which he could arguably have raised this issue in a Rule 3.800(a) motion. Under the present case law, however, improper ... ...
-
Johnson v. State, 4D08-3531.
...267 (Fla.1992), because the trial court acted with the erroneous understanding that the life sentence was mandatory.3 See Tucker v. State, 595 So.2d 956 (Fla.1992) (remanding for reconsideration in light of Burdick because the record did not indicate whether the trial court believed that it......
-
Davis v. State, 92-03282
...Instead, this court remanded for the trial judge to reconsider the appellant's sentences in light of Burdick and King. See Tucker v. State, 595 So.2d 956 (Fla.1992). See also Williams v. State, 596 So.2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA We, accordingly, reverse the appellant's two consecutive life sentenc......
-
Stewart v. State, 92-00497
...whether the trial judge would have imposed a more lenient sentence. See Davis v. State, 599 So.2d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Tucker v. State, 595 So.2d 956 (Fla.1992). Reversed and remanded to allow the judge to review the sentencing in light of Burdick and SCHOONOVER and THREADGILL, JJ., conc......