MICHAEL LAMAR MOTEN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Habitual Offender Statute Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
As defendant’s claims do not amount to claims of illegal sentence, the order denying relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is affirmed. See Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995). Assuming the merits were properly before us, the court would also point out that under the version of the habitual offender statute applicable to this case (offense date June 11, 1993), the statute no longer required a finding that imposition of a habitual offender disposition was necessary for protection of the public. See § 775.084(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (1991); ch. 88-131, § 6, at 708, Laws of Fla. (deleting requirement for “a finding that the imposition of sentence under this section is necessary for the protection of the public from further criminal activity by the defendant”); State v. Rucker, 613 So. 2d 460, 462 (Fla. 1993). Thus, defendant is incorrect in arguing that such a finding was required in his case. Further, under this version of the habitual offender statute, a habitual offender disposition was exempt from the sentencing guidelines, see id. § 775.084(4)(e), and accordingly, no departure reasons were required.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McDUFFY v. State, 837 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…se the record attachments by the trial court do not conclusively refute McDuffy’s claims, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress. See Gaston v. State, 735 So. 2d 566, 567 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. DAVIS and CANADY, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995)
- State v. Rucker, 613 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1993)