ROGER CARL HICKMAN, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court denied certiorari review of a DUI sentence enhancement based on a prior uncounseled conviction, holding that any error was not serious enough to warrant reversal where no imprisonment was imposed.
Use of a prior uncounseled conviction to enhance a DUI sentence does not constitute reversible error when the enhanced sentence imposes only a fine and license suspension without imprisonment.
“Errors 'that do not obviously prejudice fundamental rights, to the material injury of the complaining parties, may not cause a judgment to be quashed on certiorari.'”
Court's standard for reversible error on certiorari review, citing Newman v. State and State v. Roess.
Defendant received a DUI conviction and was sentenced as a second offender based on a 1980 DUI conviction entered via uncounseled nolo plea, resulting…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prior Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By petition for writ of certiorari, defendant seeks review of the circuit court order affirming his sentence for D.U.I. conviction by the County Court of Pinellas County. Based on a 1980 D.U.I. conviction entered pursuant to defendant’s uncounseled nolo plea, the county court “sentenced” defendant as a second offender, fining him $500 and suspending his driving privileges for five years. Defendant received no jail or prison time or other deprivation of his liberty, however. Defendant contests the use of this prior conviction by the county court in arriving at his sentence as a subsequent offender. He argues that his prior plea and conviction are void as he was not represented by counsel nor had he effectively waived that right. The state responds that the use of the prior, uncounseled conviction as an enhancement of the subsequent sentence was proper inasmuch as the sentence did not include any imprisonment.
Even assuming there was error in this case, we cannot say the error was so serious that it would result in a miscarriage of justice. “Errors ‘that do not obviously prejudice fundamental rights, to the material injury of the complaining parties, may not cause a judgment to be quashed on certiorari.’ Newman v. State, 174 So. 2d 479, 481 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).” State v. Roess, 451 So. 2d 879, 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
RYDER, C.J., and LEHAN and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Caudle, 504 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…ENT. DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur. . Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(c)(1)(A). . See Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 99 S.Ct. 1158, 59 L.Ed.2d 383 (1979). . § 322.28(2)(a)3., Fla.Stat. (1985). . § 322.28(2)(a)2., Fla.Stat. (1985). . Hickman v. State, 469 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 476 So. 2d 674 (Fla.1985). . See also Jackson v. State, 252 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) (court remanded for a hearing on the validity of a prior conviction and stated the procedure to be followed "in the event appel…
Authorities Cited
- Newman v. State, 174 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- State v. Roess, 451 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)