Atterbury v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
January Term 2009
JERMAINE ATTERBURY,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 4D07-4167
[April 1, 2009]
ON MOTION
TO
ENFORCE MANDATE
PER CURIAM.
The appellant has moved to enforce the mandate of this court. In
reversing appellant’s habitual felony offender sentence as illegal, we gave
the state a choice on remand: “either agree to the correction of the
sentence by removing the habitual offender designation on his current
sentences, or the state can proceed to trial o n all of the charges.”
Atterbury v. State, 991 So. 2d 980, 982 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Because
the state failed to bring the appellant to trial within ninety days of the
issuance of the mandate in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal
Procedure 3.191(m), we now order the trial court to enter a n order
striking the habitual offender designation o n appellant’s current
sentences in case numbers 04-12596 CF10A and 04-14123 CF10A. A
copy of the order complying with this opinion shall be filed with this
court.
GROSS, C.J., WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
*
*
*
Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for
the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Paul L. Backman,
Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 04-12596 CF10A and 04-14123 CF10A.
Howard Finkelstein, Public Defender a n d Joseph R. Chloupek,
Assistant Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, and Jermaine Atterbury,
Belle Glade, for appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mark J. Hamel,
Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
