THOMAS PRINCE, 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 court held that the record attachments did not conclusively refute the defendant's claim that he did not qualify for habitual offender sentencing due to a lack of sequential convictions.
[1] A defendant may raise a postconviction relief claim regarding whether they qualified for habitual offender sentencing.
[2] Sequential convictions are required to qualify for habitual offender sentencing under Florida law.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was sentenced as a habitual offender. He filed a motion for postconviction relief alleging he did not qualify because his convictions we…
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 Sequential Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.
Thomas Prince timely appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because the record attachments fail to refute Prince’s claim that he did not qualify for a habitual offender sentence in circuit court case number 95-5215, we reverse on this issue.
In case 95-5215, Prince was sentenced as a habitual offender. Among other grounds, Prince alleged in his motion that he did not qualify for habitual offender status because he did not have sequential convictions. The trial court denied relief and referred to the attached convictions for circuit court cases 90-15962, 90-15963 and 91-534. It appears from the record that Prince entered his guilty pleas and was sentenced in all three cases on the same date. In its order denying relief on this ground, the trial court relied on the number of convictions and did not discuss whether the convictions were sequential.
This issue is properly raised in a motion under rule 3.850. See Grant v. State, 611 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (allowing defendant to raise postconviction relief claim regarding whether he qualified for habitual offender sentence). Section 775.084(5), Florida Statutes (1993), requires sequential convictions to qualify for habitual offender sentencing. Ford v. State, 652 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). This requirement became effective June 17, 1993. Therefore, if the offenses in case 95-5215 were committed after June 17, 1993, sequential convictions would be required for habitual offender sentencing.
Because the record attachments do not refute Prince’s claim on this point, we reverse. On remand, the trial court should re-examine the files and records in this case to determine whether Prince is entitled to relief on this ground. If it again summarily denies the motion, the trial court must attach those parts of the record that conclusively refute the claim. In all other respects, we affirm.
Reversed and remanded in part; affirmed in part.
FULMER and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. State, 777 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…equired to prevent manifest injustice. Affirmed. ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., Concur. . The effective date of the amendment to the habitual offender statute on which Mr. Harris bases his claim was June 17, 1993. See Prince v. State, 684 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The trial court s reliance on the wrong effective date does not affect the outcome of this decision.…
-
McINTYRE v. State, 844 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…unts, all concurrently. His first ground for relief was that he lacked the sequential predicate convictions to support his sentencing as a habitualization felony offender, a legally sufficient ground for relief under rule 3.850. See Prince v. State, 684 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The trial court’s denial was based on the state’s response which, rather than attaching por [*680] tions of the record in the case, attached a print-out from the State of Florida Department of Corrections’ Corrections Offender Ne…
-
Williams v. State, 734 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…rtion is true, he has a viable ineffective assistance of counsel claim because he has been prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to show the court that he did not meet the criteria for being sentenced as a habitual felony offender. SeePrince v. State, 684 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We reverse and remand with directions to reconsider the issue and either attach those portions of the record that conclusively refute Williams’ allegation or, if the record does not conclusively refute this allegation, conduct an…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ford v. State, 652 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Grant v. State, 611 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)