LETARIUS MATHIS, 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 held that the trial court correctly denied the motion to correct sentence because the White decision is not retroactive and the prior sentencing enhancement was permissible under existing law.
Letarius Mathis appealed the denial of his motion to correct sentence, arguing that points added to his scoresheet for carrying a concealed firearm 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 Rule 3.800(A) Motion To Correct Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, Chief Judge.
Letarius Mathis timely appeals the order summarily denying his Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct sentence.
When Mathis was resentenced on April 24, 1996, upon violation of his probation, the lower court added twenty-five additional points for carrying a concealed firearm and made an additional assessment of eighteen points for that same offense, for a total of forty-three points. Mathis urges that the trial court must delete the forty-three points from his seoresheet and resentenee him accordingly, relying on the recent opinion of the supreme court of Florida in White v. State, 714 So. 2d 440 (Fla.1998).
The lower court in its order denied relief, holding that under Roberts v. State, 644 So. 2d 81 (Fla.1994), it was entitled to revise a seoresheet to include a prior conviction that was mistakenly omitted from the original seoresheet. This is a correct statement of the law. Moreover, because any error in adding that conviction to his prior record at resentencing is not apparent from the face of the seoresheet, Mathis’s claim is not cognizable under Rule 3.800(a).
The lower court’s order does not go on to address Mathis’s claim under White, which concerns the assessment of eighteen points as an enhancement under Rule 3.702(d)(12). Nonetheless, Mathis is not entitled to relief. He was resentenced on April 24, 1996, but White was not released until June 12, 1998, over two years later. Nothing in the White opinion indicates that it is to be given retrospective effect in a postconviction proceeding. At the time Mathis was resen-tenced in 1996, the law in this district was that additional sentencing points are proper when a defendant is convicted of carrying a concealed weapon or possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, even though carrying or possession of a firearm is an essential element of the underlying crime. See Gardner v. State, 661 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
AFFIRMED.
GOSHORN and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Prewitt Mgmt. Corp. v. Nikolits, 795 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…an exemption. Accordingly, the summary judgment for appellee is affirmed. We also affirm the trial court’s refusal to entertain appellant’s counterclaim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See § 194.171, Fla. Stat. (1997); Nikolits v. Delaney, 719 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(subsection 194.171(2)’s time limit provides for subject matter jurisdiction); Bancroft Inv. Corp. v. City of Jacksonville, 157 Fla. 546, 27 So. 2d 162, 171 (1946)(substance over form). Affirmed. POLEN, C.J. and TAYLOR, J., conc…
-
Nikolits v. Wynne S. Ballinger, 736 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ification, and not that of 1996, Bal-linger’s action would be timely. This court exercises its prohibition jurisdiction to review orders denying summary judgment when a trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a lawsuit. See Nikolits v. Delaney, 719 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Section 194.171(2), Florida Statutes (1997) provides that “[n]o action shall be brought to contest a tax assessment after 60 days from the date the assessment being contested is certified for collection under § 193.122(2).” Sect…
-
Letarius Mathis v. State, 738 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…cord to determine if one of the prior offenses listed on the scoresheet occurred after the primary offense.” Therefore this issue cannot be addressed in a Rule 3.800(a) context. We think the trial court ruled correctly. See, e.g., Mathis v. State, 719 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Richardson v. State, 705 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). See also Hernandez v. State, 698 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), rev. denied, 613 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1992). Compare Johnson v.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- White v. State, 714 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1998)
- Roberts v. State, 644 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1994)
- Gardner v. State, 661 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)