RODNEY SHEFFIELD, 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.
Rodney Sheffield appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing his habitual offender designation for attempted trafficking in heroin violated Florida law. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, holding that the statute governing the quantity of heroin involved did not mandate Criminal Punishment Code sentencing and therefore permitted a lawful habitual offender sentence.
The court held that a habitual offender sentence was lawfully imposed because section 893.135(1)(c)(1)(c), governing trafficking in the relevant quantity of heroin, did not include language requiring sentencing under the sentencing guidelines or Criminal Punishment Code, unlike other subsections of the statute.
[1] A habitual offender sentence may be lawfully imposed for trafficking in heroin in a quantity of 28 grams or more, but less than 30 kilograms, under section 893.135(1)(c)(…
[2] Prior case law suggesting that all trafficking offenses mandate sentencing under the Criminal Punishment Code may be distinguishable if those cases involved smaller quant…
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“Those cases might seem to suggest that any defendant convicted of trafficking was required to be sentenced under the Criminal Punishment Code and not as a habitual offender as a result of specific language in section 893.135, Florida Statutes (1999). However, on closer examination, those cases involved defendants who were charged with trafficking in small quantities of illegal drugs.”
Explains why prior cases did not control this case, requiring examination of the specific statutory subsection at issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRodney Sheffield was convicted of attempted trafficking in heroin in an amount of 28 grams or more but less than 30 kilograms, an offense that occurre…
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
ALTENBERND, Chief Judge.
Rodney Sheffield appeals an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Mr. Sheffield was convicted of attempted trafficking in heroin and sentenced to a fifteen-year term of imprisonment as a habitual offender for an offense that occurred in May 2000. He claims that his habitual offender designation is illegal because the applicable statutes mandated a Criminal Punishment Code sentence and did not permit a habitual offender sentence.
A cursory reading of our opinion in Fortner v. State, 779 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), and the Fourth District’s opinion in Dillard v. State, 820 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), would seem to support Mr. Sheffield’s claim. See also Bryant v. State, 760 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Clay v. State, 750 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Wright v. State, 743 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Stanford v. State, 706 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Those cases might seem to suggest that any defendant convicted of trafficking was required to be sentenced under the Criminal Punishment Code and not as a habitual offender as a result of specific language in section 893.135, Florida Statutes (1999).
However, on closer examination, those cases involved defendants who were charged with trafficking in small quantities of illegal drugs. The defendant in Dillard, for example, was charged with trafficking in an amount of cocaine between 28 and 200 grams.
Section 893.135(l)(b)(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), required that such a person be sentenced “pursuant to the sentencing guidelines” in 1997. Mr. Sheffield was charged with attempted trafficking in a quantity of heroin that was 28 grams or more, but less than 30 kilograms. At all times relevant to this case, trafficking in this quantity of heroin was governed by section 893.135(1)(c)(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1999), which categorized the offense as a first-degree felony and required a mandatory minimum term of twenty-five years’ imprisonment.1 Unlike section 893.135(1)(b)(1)(a), section 893.135(1)(c)(1)(c) did not include language requiring a sentence under either the sentencing guidelines or the Criminal Punishment Code.
Accordingly, a habitual offender sentence could be lawfully imposed for trafficking in this quantity of heroin and, pursuant to section 777.04(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1999), for the related crime of attempted trafficking in the same amount of heroin.
Accordingly, we affirm the order denying this postconviction motion.
WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur. . The 1999 version of the Florida Statutes applies to this case. Chapter 99-188 amended certain aspects of section 893.135, not including subsection (1)(c)(1)(c). Subsection (1)(c)(1)(c) was the same in 1997 as it was in 1999. Thus, our decision in Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), does not affect this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baker v. State, 941 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…anuary 1, 1994, until September 30, 2000, the drug-trafficking statute required the trial court to impose a sentencing guidelines sentence or later, a criminal punishment code sentence for the lower categories of trafficking. See Sheffield v. State, 875 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Dillard v. State, 820 So. 2d 994, 995 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Stanford v. State, 706 So. 2d 900, 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). This apparent glitch in the statute was corrected by the legislature in 2000. See ch. 2000-320, § 4, Laws…
Authorities Cited
- Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Elmario Clay v. State, 750 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Stanford v. State, 706 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Wautara Wright v. State, 743 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Bryant v. State, 760 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Dillard v. State, 820 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Fortner v. State, 779 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)