RONALD D. ATKINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The appellate court affirmed the denial of a motion to correct sentence and a petition for writ of mandamus. The court found that the appellant did not qualify for relief under the habitual felony offender statute because he would have qualified under the prior version of the statute, and his sentencing was based on the version in effect at the time of the offense.
No, the appellant is not entitled to relief because he would have qualified as a habitual felony offender under the prior version of the statute. The petition for mandamus relief also lacks merit.
[1] A defendant seeking to correct a sentence based on a challenge to the habitual felony offender statute must demonstrate that they would not have qualified under the immed…
[2] When sentencing a habitual offender, the trial court must apply the version of the habitual felony offender statute that was in effect at the time the offense was committ…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“when sentencing a habitual offender, the trial court is required to use the version of § 775.-084, Fla.Stat., in effect when the offense was committed.”
Establishes the legal principle for applying the correct version of the statute.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of selling cocaine and received an enhanced sentence as a habitual felony offender. He filed a motion to correct his sentence,…
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 Single Subject Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was tried and adjudicated guilty of sale or delivery of cocaine.
The trial court imposed an enhanced sentence after classifying him as a habitual felony offender and making the required statutory findings.
We affirmed the conviction and sentence as well as the trial court’s subsequent order summarily denying post-conviction relief. After that, Appellant filed a motion to correct sentence under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(a), based on the sole ground that the 1989 version of the habitual felony offender statute violated the constitutional “single subject” rule and was void prior to its reenactment in May 1991. The motion was denied on the authority of Tims v. State, 592 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), in which we held that, despite the constitutional infirmities in the 1989 statute, a defendant who would have qualified under the immediately preceding version of the statute would not be entitled to relief. During the pendency of this appeal, Appellant sought mandamus relief, apparently seeking to require us to order ourselves to expedite the ruling.
Appellant has not demonstrated any basis for relief. First, we note that when sentencing a habitual offender, the trial court is required to use the version of § 775.-084, Fla.Stat., in effect when the offense was committed. Marion v. State, 582 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Appellant committed the instant offense on August 24, 1989. The 1989 statute did not become effective until October 1, 1989. See Laws of Florida 1989, c. 89-280, § 1. Our review of the record indicates that Appellant would have qualified as a habitual felony offender under the 1988 statute and, therefore, is not entitled to relief. Second, without deciding whether Appellant followed the appropriate procedures for seeking mandamus relief, we find no merit to his petition under the present circumstances.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order denying the motion to correct sentence, and we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus.
SMITH, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Russell v. State, 675 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…r about June 30, 1994. In determining whether appellant qualified as an habitual felony offender for sentencing purposes, the trial court was obliged to look to the version of that statute in effect when the offense was committed. Atkinson v. State, 626 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). To the extent relevant, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1991), reads: (1) As used in this act: (a) “Habitual felony offender” means a defendant for whom the court may impose an extended term of imprisonment, as provided in…
-
Bradley v. State, 653 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…HARRIS, Chief Judge. See Atkinson v. State, 626 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Marion v. State, 582 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). AFFIRMED. PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Tims v. State, 592 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Marion v. State, 582 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)