Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

976 So. 2d 1190

Docket No. 5D07-4363.

Bunch v. State

James L. BUNCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2008-03-20

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 2011

1 state decisions

Relies on Bover v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2008-03-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1James L. Bunch, Monticello, pro se.

¶2Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Brigid E. Colllins, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4James Bunch appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. Mr. Bunch was sentenced as a habitual felony offender on two counts of sale of cocaine.[1] He contends that his habitual offender sentences are illegal because the lower court relied upon prior predicate convictions that were not sequential. See § 775.084(5), Fla. Stat. (2000); Bover v. State,797 So.2d 1246, 1248-49 (Fla.2001).

¶5The sentencing transcript reflects that both prior convictions used for habitualization occurred on September 8, 1998. At the sentencing, although the assistant state attorney referred to other prior convictions, none were actually admitted into evidence.[2]

¶6Because Mr. Bunch did not raise this issue or object at the original sentencing hearing, on remand, the State will have the opportunity to present record evidence that would satisfy the sequential sentencing requirements of section 775.084(5). See Bover,797 So.2d at 1248-49.

¶7REVERSED and REMANDED.

¶8PLEUS, TORPY and COHEN, JJ., concur.

NOTES

¶9[1] Mr. Bunch was also sentenced on two counts of possession of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to deliver.

¶10[2] The record does not reflect that the September 8, 1998 convictions occurred at separate sentencing proceedings.

/976/so2d/1190 · .json · Public domain