GENE REED ROBBINS, 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.
Gene Reed Robbins appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel and entitlement to resentencing under Heggs v. State. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of all claims, holding that habitual violent felony offender sentences are not subject to sentencing guidelines and thus not entitled to Heggs relief.
The court affirmed the denial of all postconviction relief claims. Habitual violent felony offender sentences are not subject to sentencing guidelines, so the mere fact that the trial court reviewed a 1995 guidelines scoresheet did not entitle Robbins to Heggs relief. Additionally, Robbins' newly raised claim of ineffective assistance of collateral counsel was not preserved for appeal and is barred under King v. State.
[1] Habitual violent felony offender sentences are not subject to the sentencing guidelines.
[2] A defendant sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender is not entitled to resentencing relief under Heggs v. …
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“Habitual violent felony offender sentences are not subject to the sentencing guidelines.”
Establishes the central legal principle that habitual violent felony offender sentences fall outside the sentencing guidelines framework and thus are not affected by Heggs relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobbins was convicted and sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender. He filed a postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel…
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 Heggs V. State Resentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
Gene Reed Robbins challenges the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Robbins’ postconviction motion alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate a voluntary intoxication defense, failing to provide Robbins with State discovery materials, and failing to present a witness at trial. Robbins raised an additional claim in a subsequent motion to amend and/or supplement his postconviction motion which alleged that Robbins was entitled to resentencing pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). We affirm the trial court’s order denying the three claims raised in Robbins’ original postconviction motion without further discussion. Additionally, we affirm the denial of the claim raised in Robbins’ motion to amend and/or supplement his postconviction motion but write to discuss our reasons for affir-mance.
In his motion to amend and/or supplement his postconviction motion, Robbins claimed that he was entitled to resentencing pursuant to Heggs. The trial court denied his motion concluding that Robbins was not entitled to resentencing under Heggs because he was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender. Robbins asserts that because the trial court had before it a 1995 guidelines scoresheet when determining his habitual violent felony offender sentence, he was entitled to Heggs relief. We find no merit to Robbins’ claim.
Habitual violent felony offender sentences are not subject to the sentencing guidelines. The mere fact that trial court may have reviewed a 1995 guidelines scoresheet when determining Robbins’ habitual violent felony offender sentence did not entitle Robbins to Heggs relief. See Hurlburt v. State, 807 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that habitual offender sentences were not affected by the unconstitutionally of the 1995 sentencing guidelines). But cf. Melgares v. State, 762 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), reh’g granted in part, 762 So. 2d at 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (suggesting that if trial court expressly stated that it used the 1995 sentencing guidelines as the basis for calculating a defendant’s habitual offender sentence, the defendant may be entitled to Heggs relief).
On appeal, Robbins raised for the first time a claim that his collateral counsel was ineffective. Because Robbins failed to raise this issue in the trial court, he failed to preserve this issue for appellate review. See James v. State, 747 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding that appellate court could not address claim that collateral counsel was ineffective where claim was not raised before the trial court). Additionally, it appears that Robbins is barred from raising this claim in a postconviction motion in light of the supreme court’s recent decision in King v. State, 808 So. 2d 1237 (Fla.2002), which held that a claim of ineffective assistance of collateral counsel is not a valid basis for postconviction relief. Affirmed.
BLUE, C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rivera v. State, 903 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…ows v. State, 890 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Teal v. State, 862 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), review granted, No. SC04-102, 898 So. 2d 81, 2005 WL 937725 (Fla. Apr. 1, 2005); McCall v. State, 862 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Robbins v. State, 816 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Cook v. State, 816 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Collins v. State, 800 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Patterson v. State, 796 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Shaw v. State, 780 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Enriquez v. State, 88…
-
White v. State, 837 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…rst time a claim that his predicate convictions did not occur within the requisite time period specified by section 775.084(l)(a). Because that claim was not raised in the trial court, it was not preserved for appellate review. See Robbins v. State, 816 So. 2d 783, 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). We note, however, that White has not raised the issue of whether his predicate convictions met the sequential convic [*608] tions requirement of section 775.084(5), Florida Statutes (Supp.1998). See Bover v. State, 797 So. 2…
-
Hallmon v. State, 102 So. 3d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Robbins v. State, 816 So. 2d 783, 784 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). MAY, C.J., WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Amos Lee King v. State, 808 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 2002)
- German Melgares v. State, 762 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Hurlburt v. State, 807 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Middleton v. State, 747 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)