JULIO JESUS VALDES, 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's sentences were not illegal and did not violate Apprendi or Blakely.
The defendant was convicted of two second-degree felonies and sentenced to probation with a significant period of incarceration. He argued his sentenc…
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 Blakely V. Washington cases and more on FLexlaw
[*566] PER CURIAM.
Julio Valdes appeals an order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus and alternative motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm.
In Miami-Dade County Circuit Court case number 0Í-13664 defendant-appellant Valdes was convicted of two second degree felonies, each having a legal maximum of fifteen years. See § 775.082(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2001).1 The defendant was sentenced to fifteen years of probation with a special condition of twelve years incarceration.
The defendant argues that his sentences violate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), but he is incorrect. Under the applicable version of the sentencing guidelines, there is no guidelines maximum and the trial court is permitted to impose any sentence up to the legal maximum. Id. § 921.0024(2). Since the sentences here are within the legal maximum, the defendant’s argument under Apprendi is without merit.
Defendant argues that his sentence violates Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). We have held that Blakely does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. See Burgal v. State, 888 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). We therefore need not consider the argument under Blakely.
Affirmed.2
. The crime date was April 29, 2001.
. The defendant filed his motion solely in circuit court case number 01-13664. The circuit court clerk also filed it in circuit court case number 04-28669, and the trial court order bears both case numbers. The defendant's motion did not seek any relief in circuit court case number 04-28669.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McMURTRY v. State, 907 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…as a habitual violent offender. Contrary to the defendant’s assertion, under section 775.081(b), Florida Statutes (1995), only one qualifying prior conviction was needed in order to sentence him as a habitual violent offender. See Fletcher v. State, 892 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Hall v. State, 821 So. 2d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). As the defendant concedes in his motion that he was previously found guilty of armed robbery in case number 88^44496, and armed robbery in case number 88-44497, and either…
Authorities Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004)
- Westerheide v. State, 888 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Burgal v. State, 888 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)