PAUL A. WHITE, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed denial of motion to correct illegal sentence where defendant failed to preserve a new claim about predicate conviction timing for appellate review, but allowed refiling on unaddressed sequential conviction requirements.
A defendant's claim regarding predicate conviction timing that was not raised in the trial court is not preserved for appellate review and cannot be considered on appeal.
[1] A claim not raised in the trial court motion is not preserved for appellate review and cannot be considered on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePaul White was sentenced as a habitual felony offender based on prior South Carolina convictions. He filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence arg…
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 Sequential Conviction Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Paul White challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, White argued that his prior convictions in South Carolina should have been considered misdemeanors that could not support the imposition of a habitual felony offender sentence under section 775.084(l)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1998). The record reflects that the trial court correctly denied relief on this ground.
In his appellate brief, White raised for the first 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 tions requirement of section 775.084(5), Florida Statutes (Supp.1998). See Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246, 1250 (Fla.2001). Therefore, we affirm the order denying relief without prejudice to White’s filing a facially sufficient motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a) regarding issues not previously addressed by the trial court.
DAVIS and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 943 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See White v. State, 837 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2003). ERVIN, DAVIS, and BENTON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2001)
- Robbins v. State, 816 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)