HENRY LEE DIXON, 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 a prior prohibition on filings did not apply to the current case because it involved a different underlying case number. However, the appellant was not entitled to relief on his motion to correct an illegal sentence.
Henry Lee Dixon appealed an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The trial court denied the motion, believing it was barred by a p…
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 Habitual Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
We withdraw our prior opinion and substitute the following in its place.
This appeal arises from an order denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence filed by Henry Lee Dixon.1 The trial court denied the motion, concluding that it was barred by this court's opinion in Dixon v. State, 763 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), in which we prohibited this same appellant from any future filings raising the same issues he had brought in four previous appeals. However, that earlier case dealt with a different circuit court case (no. 80-6699), not with the present underlying case (no. 80-4416). Thus, this court’s prohibition does not apply to the present case.
Nonetheless, having reviewed appellant’s motion, we conclude that he is not entitled to relief. He alleges that the trial court failed to expressly sentence him as a habitual offender during the oral pronouncement of the sentence. We have read the plea colloquy and it shows that the trial court adjudicated appellant as a habitual offender and sentenced him to a sentence which could be imposed only under the habitual offender provisions. Thus, the transcript clearly indicates that the court orally imposed a habitual offender sentence on appellant.
STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. . We strike Jeffery Jerome Dixon as an appellant in this case because the motion to correct illegal sentence was filed only by Henry Lee Dixon.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stokes v. State, 884 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Teal v. State, 862 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); McCall v. State, 862 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); O’Neal v. State, 862 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Wright v. State, 834 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Dixon v. State, 812 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 831 So. 2d 671 (Fla.2002). As this court did in both Teal and McCall, we certify direct conflict with Richardson v. State, 884 So. 2d 950, 2003 WL 21697171 (Fla. 4th DCA July 23, 2003). Affirmed; conflict certified.…
Authorities Cited
- Dixon v. State, 763 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)