CHRISTOPHER GADSEN, 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 court held that the trial court properly denied the motion to correct sentence because the appellant did not raise the claim that predicate convictions were not sequential.
Christopher Gadsen challenged his habitual offender sentences, alleging his youthful offender convictions could not be used as predicate offenses. The…
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 Sequential Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Acting Chief Judge.
Christopher Gadsen challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm.
Gadsen alleged in his motion that his habitual offender sentences are illegal because his youthful offender convictions could not be used as predicate offenses under the habitual offender statute. The trial court properly denied this claim. See Weford v. State, 784 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
In his motion, Gadsen stated that all his predicate convictions were youthful offender convictions and that he was “adjudicated and sentenced on the same day” in all of those cases. The attachments to the trial court’s order support this statement. Gadsen was sentenced under a version of the habitual offender statute that required that the predicate convictions be sequential. See Markens v. State, 793 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). A claim that a habitual offender sentence is illegal because the required predicate convictions were not entered sequentially is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. See id. However, Gadsen did not raise this claim in his motion, and the trial court did not address it. Our affirmance, therefore, is without prejudice to any right Gad-sen might have to raise this claim in a subsequent facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion.
Affirmed.
CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sharif S. Miffin v. State, 240 So. 3d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
-
Walker v. State, 828 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…. See, e.g., Weford v. State, 784 So. 2d 1222, 1223-1224 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (holding that prior sentencing as a youthful offender does not preclude consideration in habitual offender proceeding of such crimes as predicate offenses); Gadsen v. State, 805 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Whitfield v. Singletary, 730 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); see also Arce v. State, 762 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (affirming the denial of motion to correct sentence under Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000) where def…
-
Burgess v. State, 254 So. 3d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Laura E. Ward, Judge. Tomas S. Burgess, pro se. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State v. Richardson, 915 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2005); McCall v. State, 862 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Gadsen v. State, 805 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Clark v. State, 54 So. 3d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Westberry v. State, 906 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Weford v. State, 784 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). KHOUZAM, MORRIS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Weford v. State, 784 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Mancebo v. State, 793 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)