JASON HARDMAN, 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 defendant waived his right to appeal by failing to preserve errors below or file a motion pursuant to rule 3.800.
The defendant pleaded guilty to probation violations and new criminal charges, and was sentenced as a habitual felony offender. He did not preserve an…
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 Anders Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Hardman brings an Anders1 appeal from his sentences received in five probation violation cases and eleven subsequent criminal cases. He entered guilty pleas to both the probation violation cases and the new criminal cases. He was sentenced as an habitual felony offender and received extensive sentences.2 We affirm.
Hardman entered guilty pleas, acknowledging he would be sentenced as an habitual offender. Since he failed to preserve any errors by objection below or by motion pursuant to revised Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, there is nothing for this court to review. Hunter v. State, 700 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); § 924.051, Fla. Stat.; Fla.App. R.P. 9.140(9). An examination of this record fails to disclose any issues which, even with guilty pleas, Hardman might have been able to raise pursuant to Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898, 903 (Fla.1979). See Isley v. State, 565 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 5th DCA (1990)).
AFFIRMED.
COBB and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
. In the 5 probation violation cases, Hardman received habitual felony offender sentences of (a) 5 years; (b) 30 years and 10 years; (c) 25 years and 10 years; (d) 25 years, 10 years and 25 years; and (e) 25 years and 4, 10-year terms, all to be served concurrently. In the 11 new cases he was sentenced as an habitual felony offender. Those sentences were to run concurrently with each other but consecutive to the violation of probation cases. He received (a) 30 years and 3, 10-year terms; (b) 30 years and 2, 10-year terms; (c) 30 years and 2, 10-year terms; (d) life and 3, 10-year terms; (e) 2, 30-year terms; (f) 10 years; (g) 2, 30-year temis and 10 years; (h) life, a 30-year term and 6, 10-year terms; (i) 30 years and 3, 10-year terms; (j) 30 years and 3, 10-year terms; and (k) 30 years and 3, 10-year terms.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seeley v. State, 214 So. 3d 783 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In November of 1996, Seeley was convicted of capital sexual battery and sentenced to life in prison. His judgment and sentence were affirmed. Seeley v. State, 701 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). In Seeley’s rule 3.800(a) motion, he alleges that his offense occurred between January 1, 1994 and December 17, 1995. These dates span two different sets of guidelines, and he contends that he should have been sentenced under…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Gissendanner v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Isley v. State, 565 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Hunter v. State, 700 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)