From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hicks v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Aug 2, 1991
583 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Opinion

No. 89-00881.

August 2, 1991.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, John P. Griffin, J.

Sylvia H. Walbolt, Gwynne A. Young and Roderick K. Pearcey of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith Cutler, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Brenda S. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


In this appeal, appellant challenges only his sentences. He challenges the departure sentence imposed because no written reasons were given for the departure. The sentences for eight offenses also included several three-year mandatory minimum terms under section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1987), for committing the offenses while in possession of a firearm. We affirm appellant's convictions but reverse the sentences imposed and remand for resentencing.

We agree with appellant that there was no evidence of his actual possession of a firearm, but only evidence of vicarious possession through his codefendant's possession of a firearm during the commission of the offenses. Although vicarious possession is sufficient to sustain appellant's convictions for these offenses under the principal theory, it is not sufficient possession to impose a mandatory minimum period of confinement under the statute. Willingham v. State, 541 So.2d 1240, 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 548 So.2d 663 (Fla. 1989); Taylor v. State, 467 So.2d 367 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Appellant's failure to object during the sentencing hearing does not waive his right to raise this error on appeal because such a sentencing error constitutes fundamental error. Whitehead v. State, 446 So.2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), rev. denied, 462 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 1985).

We further agree with appellant that the entire sentence must be reversed because it is a departure from the guidelines without written reasons. On remand, the court must resentence appellant within the guidelines. Pope v. State, 561 So.2d 554 (Fla. 1990).

We affirm appellant's convictions but reverse the sentences imposed and remand for resentencing in accordance herewith.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hicks v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Aug 2, 1991
583 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
Case details for

Hicks v. State

Case Details

Full title:ZACHERY HICKS, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Aug 2, 1991

Citations

583 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Citing Cases

Freeny v. State

In order for a defendant's sentence to be enhanced pursuant to section 775.087, the state must prove that the…

State v. Smith

Id. at 959. Subsequent decisions which have applied the holding in Earnest to preclude imposition of the…