SHELDON HEPBURN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Successive Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sheldon Hepburn appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, see Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800, and alleges that his sentence is illegal under Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). We affirm.
Hepburn entered a plea of no contest and was sentenced to 17.4 years as a habitual violent felony offender. A sentence as a habitual offender is not affected by Heggs even where, as here, the actual sentence imposed coincides with the bottom of the 1995 guidelines. See Ford v. State, 763 So. 2d 1273, 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). In addition, when a negotiated plea agreement is not conditioned upon the imposition of a sentence within a specific guideline range, improper scoring of the defendant’s scoresheet will not render the plea illegal unless the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. See Dunenas v. Moore, 762 So. 2d 1007, 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Finally, we take judicial notice of Case No. 3D00-1240, 764 So. 2d 594 filed in this Court by Hepburn in which he moved to correct an illegal sentence under State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1999). This Court affirmed the denial of that motion. Thus, Hepburn’s latest motion is impermissibly successive.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hepburn v. State, 934 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…ation as a habitual violent felony offender, which he had already challenged in his first and third Rule 3.850 motions, was illegal under Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). This motion was denied and affirmed by this court. Hepburn v. State, 778 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Hepburn also sought a writ of mandamus from this court to compel the trial court to rule on a “combination Rule 3.850 and Rule 3.800 motion.” The petition for mandamus was dismissed as moot. See id. On February 20, 2001, Hepburn…
-
Hurlburt v. State, 807 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…ugh they fell within the 1995 sentencing guidelines range, because habitual offender sentences are not affected by the unconstitutionality of the 1995 sentencing guidelines. See Abaunza v. State, 781 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Hepburn v. State, 778 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Moreover, Mr. Hurlburt is not entitled to withdraw his plea pursuant to Murphy v. State, 773 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (en banc), because he entered an open plea to these charges after having received notice of the State’s i…
-
Debord v. State, 802 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…, 781 So. 2d 484, 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Boerstler v. State, 622 So. 2d 184, 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). But, in all but one case, Mr. Debord’s sentences exceeded the statutory maximum for the offenses. See Bell, 795 So. 2d at 1141; Hepburn v. State, 778 So. 2d 448, 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Dunenas v. Moore, 762 So. 2d 1007, 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Assuming his allegations are accurate, the sentences exceeding the statutory maxi [*529] mum would also exceed the guidelines range, and therefore be illegal. We th…
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
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1999)
- Durwin D. Dunenas v. Moore, 762 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Deon v. State, 763 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)