SHAVON L. MILLER, 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.
Miller appealed her 65-month prison sentence for cocaine trafficking, challenging the constitutionality of Florida's Criminal Punishment Code on due process grounds. The Fourth District affirmed her sentence but clarified that defendants may raise constitutional challenges to sentences in Rule 3.800(b) motions for sentencing error.
The court affirmed Miller's sentence and held that while the Criminal Punishment Code is not subject to due process challenges because sentencing guidelines are not constitutional rights, defendants are permitted to raise constitutional challenges to sentences in Rule 3.800(b) motions for sentencing error, including illegal sentences.
[1] A motion to correct any sentencing error, including an illegal sentence, may be filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).
[2] A defendant may raise a constitutional challenge to a sentence in a motion to correct sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).
Previewing 2 of 4 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“a motion to correct any sentencing error, including an illegal sentence, may be filed as allowed by this subdivision”
Establishes that Rule 3.800(b) permits raising constitutional errors in sentencing, contradicting the trial court's narrow interpretation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMiller entered a plea of no contest to trafficking in cocaine and was sentenced to 65 months in prison followed by five years of probation under the C…
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 Sentencing Error cases and more on FLexlaw
TAYLOR, J.
After entering a plea of no contest to trafficking in cocaine, appellant was sentenced under the Criminal Punishment Code to sixty-five months in prison followed by five years of probation. She later filed a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). In her motion, appellant challenged the constitutionality of the Criminal Punishment Code on the grounds that it violates due process by allowing the state to appeal a downward departure sentence without affording the defendant a similar right. She also contended that the Code is unconstitutional because it fails to promote uniformity in sentencing.
The circuit court summarily denied the motion, concluding that “Rule 3.800(b) is not the appropriate procedural vehicle by which to raise constitutional challenges to the Criminal Punishment Code.” The court reasoned that the constitutional claims presented in the motion went beyond the purpose and scope of the rule in that they did not constitute a “sentencing error” within the meaning of the rule.
We affirm appellant’s sentence imposed under the Criminal Punishment Code. See Hall v. State, 767 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), review granted, No. SC00-2358, 790 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. Apr.25, 2001)(holding that sentencing guidelines are not subject to a due process challenge because they are not constitutional rights and recognizing that a defendant can appeal an illegal sentence under the Code); see also Peterson v. State, 775 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Hayes v. State, 780 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Hall v. State, 773 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
We write only to clarify that a defendant is permitted to raise a constitutional challenge to a sentence in a Rule 3.800(b) motion. The rule states that “a motion to correct any sentencing error, including an illegal sentence, may be filed as allowed by this subdivision.” (Emphasis added). Further, the Florida Supreme Court has stated that a defendant is required to raise all unpreserved sentencing errors by filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Rule 3.800(b)(2). See Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000). This includes constitutional errors. See Salters v. State, 758 So. 2d 667, 668 n. 4 (Fla.2000)(“[F]or those defendants who have available the procedural mechanism of our recently amended rule 3.800(b), we would require that such defendants in the future raise a single subject rule challenge in the trial court prior to filling the first appellate brief”).
AFFIRMED.
FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Terry v. State, 151 So. 3d 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…rly habitual-ized by the court. Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562, 572 (Fla.2008) (citing Brannon v. State, 850 So. 2d 452, 454 (Fla.2003)). Defendants may raise such constitutional challenges to a sentence in a rule 3.800(b) motion. Miller v. State, 788 So. 2d 330, 331 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). However, we affirm on all other issues raised by appellant on the merits. Affirmed. GERBER, LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- Salters v. State, 758 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2000)
- Peterson v. State, 775 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Hall v. State, 773 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Artis J. Kelly v. State, 767 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Wester v. State, 767 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Hayes v. State, 780 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)