ELDRED SALTERS, 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 although the motion was untimely under Rule 3.850, the claim was cognizable under Rule 3.800 and was not time-barred.
Eldred Salters pleaded guilty in two cases in 1996 and was sentenced as a habitual offender. He later violated his supervision and received a ten-year…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.
Eldred Salters appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. The motion is styled as a rule 3.850 motion and, as such, is untimely. However, Salters’ meritorious claim is cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, and is not time-barred. We reverse the order of the trial court on this single meritorious issue and affirm it in all other respects.
Salters entered pleas in two cases in 1996. The trial court pronounced him a habitual offender and sentenced him to prison for ten years in case number 96-08502. The court then suspended his sentence, placing him on two years’ community control and two years’ probation. He violated the terms of his supervision and was sentenced as a habitual offender to a ten-year prison sentence.
Salters’ initial sentence was not a habitual offender sentence. Consequently, unless his original sentence was the result of a negotiated plea, he must be sentenced pursuant to the sentencing guidelines. See Pankhurst v. State, 796 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
FULMER and GREEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smalley v. State, 889 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…cause, lose many rights to personal privacy under the 4th Amendment,5 as well as probationers.6 Our sister courts in this state have found this statute to be constitutional. See Gonzalez v. State, 869 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); L.S. v. State, 805 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). The basis for these rulings is that a convicted person has no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to blood samples for DNA testing which outweighs the state’s interest in identifying convicted felons in a manner that…
-
State v. Geiss, 70 So. 3d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…ourth Amendment [*646] by the United States Supreme Court, the “except as otherwise provided herein” language of article 1, section 23 must be read as authorizing governmental intrusion into one’s private life to the same measure. See L.S. v. State, 805 So. 2d 1004, 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (“Article I, section 23, does not modify the applicability of Article I, section 12, so as to provide more protection than that provided under the Fourth Amendment ....”) (citing State v. Hume, 512 So. 2d 185, 188 (Fla.1987…
-
Morris v. State, 909 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…vide DNA samples did not violate his fourth amendment right to be free from unlawful searches); Gonzalez v. State, 869 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (finding no merit to defendant’s argument that section 943.325 is unconstitutional); L.S. v. State, 805 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), rev. denied, 821 So. 2d 297 (Fla.2002) (DNA testing requirement did not violate juvenile’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under fourth amendment, did not deny equal protection and did not violate rights…
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
- Collazo v. Moore, 796 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Pankhurst v. State, 796 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)