JAMES ASHLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 defendant qualifies as a habitual offender under the statute in effect at the time of the crime, and the Apprendi decision does not apply to habitual offender adjudications under Florida law.
James Ashley appealed an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. He argued that habitual offender findings must be made by a jury due…
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 Adjudication cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James Ashley appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm.
We conclude that defendant-appellant Ashley qualifies as a habitual offender under the version of the statute in effect on the date of his crime, October 22, 1992. See § 775.084, Fla. Stat. (1991). For that version of the habitual offender statute, there was no sequential conviction requirement. State v. Barnes, 595 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1992).
Defendant argues that the habitual offender findings had to be made by the jury on account of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). For present purposes we need not address the defendant’s claim that Apprendi is retroactive. Assuming for purposes of discussion that it is retroactive, the Apprendi decision does not apply to the adjudication of a defendant as a habitual offender under the Florida habitual offender statute. Saldo v. State, 789 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Robbinson v. State, 784 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Osborn v. State, 915 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…, 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). The defendant’s claim under Apprendi is without merit. “[T]he Apprendi decision does not apply to the adjudication of a defendant as a habitual offender under [*191] the Florida habitual offender statute.” Ashley v. State, 816 So. 2d 170, 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (citations omitted). Finally, defendant argues that the trial court failed to attach portions of the record refuting the defendant’s claims. The defendant is incorrect. Appropriate record excerpts have been included in the r…
-
Cochran v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- State v. Barnes, 595 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1992)
- Saldo v. State, 789 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Graddy Robbinson v. State, 784 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)