Skip to main content

Carter v. State

Citations

  • 786 So. 2d 1173
  • 2001 WL 543657

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that a habitual offender sentence is illegal when the habitual offender statute in effect at the time of the crime prohibited a court from imposing habitual offender status
  • holding that \illegal” means that \no judge under the entire body of sentencing statutes could possibly inflict [them] under any set of factual circumstances”
  • concluding that because the error in sentencing Carter as a habitual offender for a life felony was apparent on the face of the record, Carter was entitled to relief pursuant to rule 3.800(a)
  • holding that the sentencing court has discretion when imposing an HFO sentence
  • stating that “improper habitualization may have collateral consequences that could ultimately increase the length of [a defendant’s] sentence”
  • explaining that a sentence is illegal if it imposes a kind of punishment that no judge under the entire body of sentencing law could impose under any set of factual circumstances

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Pariente

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

152 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.