Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Martin Luther McCRAY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
On Rehearing Denied
Defendant-appellant Martin Luther McCray argues that under the oral pronouncement of his sentence, the counts on which he was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender (“HVFO”) should be fifteen years, not life with a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years. The defendant maintains that he is entitled to relief under Ashley v. State, 28 Fla. L. Weekly S 18, 2003 WL 60564 (Fla. Jan. 9, 2003).
At the sentencing hearing, the State asked that the defendant be adjudicated an HVFO and sentenced to life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years. The defense argued that the defendant should be sentenced to fifteen years as an ordinary habitual offender (“HO”).
In pronouncing sentence the court said:
The Court thinks this was a particularly violent and heinous crime. I'm going to sentence Mr. McCray as a habitual violent felony offender, provided with a 15 year minimum mandatory on each count that can be so sentenced on each count, one with the other.
TR. April 9, 1991, at 19.
It is obvious when the entire transcript is read in context, that there is a transcription error in the just quoted paragraph. Instead of “provided with” it is clear that the judge actually said “life with.” We know that because the contemporaneous handwritten notes on the guidelines scoresheet, signed by the sentencing judge, states “[defendant] sentenced as Habitual Violent Offender to Life W/ 15 yr. Min. Mand. State Prison.” The Ashley decision does not apply here. The trial court was entirely correct in so interpreting the sentencing transcript and denying postconviction relief.
Rehearing denied.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 3D02-2801.
Decided: March 05, 2003
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)