KENNETH MARTIN, 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.
Martin appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion, claiming the trial court lacked jurisdiction because his offense should have been prosecuted as a misdemeanor rather than a felony. The court affirmed, holding that Martin's guilty plea without any attempt to withdraw it waived his arguments regarding reclassification of the offense.
The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction and that Martin's guilty plea, entered without any attempt to withdraw it, waived his arguments based on the Huss decision that the prior convictions should not have been used to reclassify his offense.
[1] A guilty plea waives arguments that prior convictions should not have been used to reclassify a present offense, absent an attempt to withdraw the plea.
[2] A claim that a trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a judgment is without merit when the defendant entered a guilty plea.
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“Martin has not sought to withdraw his plea. Instead, he asserts that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to try him. That argument clearly lacks merit.”
The court's primary basis for affirming, establishing that the jurisdiction argument fails regardless of the Huss issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartin pleaded guilty to knowingly driving while license suspended or revoked. He was sentenced on October 31, 2000, without appealing the judgment or…
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 Guilty Plea Waiver cases and more on FLexlaw
Martin appeals from the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He pled guilty to the felony charge of knowingly driving while license suspended or revoked.1 He was sentenced on October 31, 2000, and did not appeal from the judgment or sentence.
Martin claims the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter its judgment because the case should have been prosecuted as a misdemeanor. This is premised on the fact that the prosecution used his prior convictions for driving with a suspended or revoked license as predicates to reclassify his current offense from a misdemeanor to a third degree felony. However, at the time those prior offenses were committed, the previous version of the statutory offense did not require knowledge as an essential element. See § 322.34, Fla. Stat. (1995). Thus arguably, they should not be used as a basis to reclassify. See Huss v. State, 771 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). That opinion by the first district cited in the 3.850 motion was issued on November 9, 2000, after Martin was sentenced.2 We do not need to reach that issue in this case. In Caples v. State, 790 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), this court reviewed an order denying a 3.800(a) motion to correct sentence, which was based on the holding in Huss. We noted in Capíes that the defendant entered into a negotiated plea and held that he was not entitled to correction of his sentence based on a Huss argument, but should have requested a withdrawal of his plea.
Similarly in this case, Martin has not sought to withdraw his plea. Instead, he asserts that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to try him. That argument clearly lacks merit. See State v. Phillips, 463 So. 2d 1136 (Fla.1985). And his guilty plea, without any attempt to withdraw it, waives his argument based on Huss, that the prior convictions should not have been used to reclassify his present offense.
AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON, C.J., and SAWAYA, J., concurs.
. § 322.34(2), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998).
. As noted by the circuit court, the holding in Huss is not a retroactive change in the law. A change of law will not be considered under a Rule 3.850 motion unless the change emanates from the Florida Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court, is constitutional in nature and constitutes a development of fundamental significance. See Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922, 931 (Fla.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1067, 101 S.Ct. 796, 66 L.Ed.2d 612 (1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thompson v. State, 887 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 2004)…not retroactive. Id. Finally, the Fifth District rejected Thompson’s assertion that the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter its judgment and charac [*1262] terized the argument as “ ‘clearly lacking] merit.’ ” Id. (quoting Martin v. State, 809 So. 2d 65, 66 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)). Analysis Prior to October 1, 1997, section 322.34, Florida Statutes (1995), provided in relevant part: (1) Any person whose driver’s license or driving privilege has been canceled, suspended, or revoked as provided by la…
-
Thompson v. State, 808 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…mpson argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law because Huss did not change the law, but merely recognized the state of the law. He is incorrect. Huss represents a change in the law, but the ruling is not retroactive. See Martin v. State, 809 So. 2d 65 n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Secondly, he argues that the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter its judgment. That argument, as Judge Sharp pointed out in Martin, “clearly lacks merit.” See Martin; See also State v. Phillips, 463 So. 2d 1136 (F…
-
Comer H. Bryan, III v. State, 862 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…r convictions cannot be used as a predicate for a conviction of felony DWLSR because the prior convictions occurred before section 322.34(2)(c) was amended in 1997. We disagree with this argument and affirm based upon our rulings in Martin v. State, 809 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) and Thompson v. State, 808 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. granted, 826 So. 2d 994 (Fla.2002). The retroactivity argument was made to this court and rejected. In Martin, we held that “the holding in Huss is not a retroactive chan…1 / 2
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
- Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1980)
- Adams v. Peat, 449 U.S. 1067 (U.S. 1980)
- Jarrett v. Jarrett, 449 U.S. 1067 (U.S. 1980)
- Huss v. State, 771 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- State v. Phillips, 463 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1985)
- Caples v. State, 790 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)