JOHN REESE, 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.
John Reese appealed his seven-year prison sentence as a habitual offender for cocaine delivery, arguing the trial court failed to orally pronounce the habitual offender designation. The court affirmed, holding that Reese waived the issue by failing to preserve it through objection or a Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion.
Reese waived the sentencing error by failing to preserve it through objection at sentencing or by filing a Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct the sentencing error before filing his appellate brief.
[1] A sentencing error must be preserved in the trial court by objection at sentencing or by motion to correct sentence under Rule 3.800(b) to be raised on direct appeal.
[2] A defendant may file a motion to correct a sentencing error under Rule 3.800(b)(2) at any time until the first appellate brief is filed, if a notice of appeal has been fi…
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“In order for a sentencing error to be raised on direct appeal from a conviction and sentence, it must be preserved in the trial court either by objection at the time of sentencing or in a motion to correct sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).”
Establishes the preservation requirement for sentencing errors on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury found Reese guilty of delivery of cocaine. At sentencing, the state announced it had qualified Reese as a habitual offender. The trial court im…
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 Motion To Correct Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, J.
We deny appellant’s motion for rehearing, but substitute the following opinion in place of our previously issued slip opinion, Reese v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D1430 (Fla. 4th DCA June 14, 2000).
John Reese appeals from a sentence of seven years in prison as a habitual offender after a jury found him guilty of delivery of cocaine. He argues that the trial court failed to orally sentence him as a habitual offender. The state counters that he waived this issue. We agree with the state’s argument and, thus, affirm.
After the trial had concluded, the jury found Reese guilty as charged. At sentencing, the state announced it had qualified Reese as a habitual offender. His sentencing guidelines indicated a sentencing range beginning from 15.9 months. The court then imposed, without objection, a sentence of seven years in prison, whereupon the state immediately asked the trial court to find him a habitual offender. The court then found him same. This timely appeal followed.
We hold that Reese waived this issue. “In order for a sentencing error to be raised on direct appeal from a conviction and sentence, it must be preserved in the trial court either by objection at the time of sentencing or in a motion to correct sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).” Hyden v. State, 715 So. 2d 960, 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). While no objection can be made at the time of sentencing that the written' judgment does not conform to the oral pronouncement, a defendant, if a notice of appeal has been filed, can file a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct a sentencing error in the trial court at any time until the first appellate brief is filed. Amendments of Florida Rules of Crim. Procedure 3.111(e) and 3.800 and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h), 9.140, and 9.600, 761 So. 2d 1015 (Fla.1999), reh’g granted, 761 So. 2d at 1025 (hereinafter Amendments II). Here, the record shows that Reese never filed a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct a sentencing error. Thus, we conclude that he may not raise this issue on appeal.
In this respect, we decline to address whether the alleged error was fundamental. Where an appellant filed his first appellate brief during the window period between the effective date of the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 19961 and Amendments II, he may raise certain unpreserved sentencing errors on direct appeal as fundamental error. Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000). In this case, however, Reese filed his appellate brief after the effective date of Amendments II. Consequently, we need not determine whether the trial court’s deviation from oral pronouncement of sentence constituted fundamental error. With respect to the remaining point on appeal, we affirm.
WARNER, C.J., and STONE, J., concur. . Ch. 96-248, Laws, of Fla.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harvey v. State, 786 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…lleged sentencing error where defendant’s trial had taken place after most recent amendments to rule 3.800(b) and defendant had failed to raise the issue in the trial court or in postsenteneing proceedings pursuant to rule 3.800(b)); Reese v. State, 763 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(holding that a sentencing error, which had been held to be fundamental for defendants falling within the window period identified in Maddox, could not be raised for the first time on appeal by a defendant who had filed his initia…
-
Garrett v. State, 788 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…ost-trial rule 3.800(b) motion was filed. We hold that our supreme court’s decision in Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000), mandates that this question be answered in the negative. The court previously considered this issue in Reese v. State, 763 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(on rehearing). There, Reese was sentenced to seven years in prison as a habitual offender after a jury found him guilty of delivery of cocaine. Reese argued on direct appeal that the trial judge failed to orally sentence him as a…
-
Lavonte Diedrell Maxwell v. State, 803 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…t of rule 3.800, which was January 13, 2000, an appellate court should not address unpreserved, non-fundamental sentencing errors. Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000); Harvey v. State, 786 So. 2d 595 [*819] (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Reese v. State, 763 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Third, Maxwell argues a double jeopardy violation occurred with regard to his enhanced kidnaping conviction, because he was convicted of kidnaping in the commission of aggravated battery on Charles with a weapon pursuant to sec…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- Amendments TO Fla. Rules OF Crim. Procedure 3.111(e) & 3.800 & Fla. Rules OF App. Procedure 9.020(h), 791 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2001)
- Hyden v. State, 715 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)