Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

671 So. 2d 279

Docket No. 95-1034.

Zequeira v. State

Luis Jacinto ZEQUEIRA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 10, 1996.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1996-04-10

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1997

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Sentencing under the habitual offender statute as well as the imposition of minimum mandatory terms is permissive, not mandatory.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 678 So. 2d 510 - State v. Morales

Relies on 634 So. 2d 187 - Daniels v. State · Walsingham v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1996-04-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Maria A. Berry, Specially Appointed Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Linda S. Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

¶3Before GERSTEN, GREEN and FLETCHER, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Luis Zequeira, the defendant, was found guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender to fifteen years imprisonment with a ten year minimum mandatory term. At sentencing, the trial court indicated it was imposing the sentence because it believed the minimum mandatory requirement was not discretionary. This is incorrect.

¶6Sentencing under the habitual offender statute as well as the imposition of minimum mandatory terms is permissive, not mandatory. Walsingham v. State,602 So.2d 1297 (Fla.1992); Daniels v. State,634 So.2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Accordingly, we remand the case for resentencing. In all other respects, the judgment below is affirmed.

¶7Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded for resentencing.

/671/so2d/279 · .json · Public domain