JUAN CARLOS FORCELLEDO, 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.
Juan Carlos Forcelledo appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief challenging his violent career criminal sentencing designation. He argues the State's notice of enhanced penalty was deficient because it sought enhanced penalties under multiple statutory classifications. The court affirmed, holding that the State may give notice under multiple classifications where it is prepared to show the defendant meets the statutory criteria.
The trial court correctly rejected Forcelledo's challenge. The State's notice was sufficient because it advised the defendant of the specific statutory classifications the State intended to rely on, and the State is permitted to give notice under as many classifications as it chooses where it is prepared to show the defendant meets the statutory criteria.
[1] A notice of intent to seek an enhanced penalty is sufficient if it advises the defendant of the specific statutory classifications the State intends to rely on.
[2] The State may provide notice under multiple statutory classifications for enhanced penalties if it is prepared to demonstrate that the defendant meets the criteria for ea…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The notice advises the defendant of the specific statutory classifications the State intends to rely on in seeking an enhanced sentence. The State is allowed to give notice under as many classifications as it chooses, where the State is prepared to show that the defendant meets the statutory criteria.”
The core holding establishing that multiple statutory classifications may be included in a notice of enhanced penalty
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceForcelledo was sentenced as a violent career criminal. The State filed a notice of its intention to seek an enhanced penalty under Florida Statute 775…
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 Felony Offender cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, J.
Juan C. Forcelledo appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He was sentenced as a violent career criminal and seeks to set aside that designation. He maintains that the State’s notice of enhanced penalty filed in his case was deficient. The trial court correctly rejected this claim.
The State filed a notice of its intention to seek an enhanced penalty which read as follows:
NOTICE OF STATE’S INTENTION TO SEEK ENHANCED PENALTY PURSUANT TO F.S. 775.084 AND REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT
COMES NOW KATHERINE FERNANDEZ RUNDLE, State Attorney of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, by and through the undersigned Assistant State Attorney, and gives notice that the defendant qualifies for an enhanced penalty pursuant to 775.084 Florida Statutes, as a:
|3 Habitual felony offender;
3 Habitual violent felony offender;
Three-time violent felony offender;
3 Violent career criminal,
And upon conviction of the defendant in the above-styled cause, the State will seek imposition of any of the aforementioned enhanced penalties. The State further requests that upon conviction, this Court order the Florida Parole and Probation Commission to prepare and deliver to the Court a pre-sentence investigation report on said defendant.
Defendant-appellant. Forcelledo argues that this notice is deficient for being insufficiently particularized. He contends that it is impermissible for the State to seek an enhanced penalty under more than one statutory provision. The defendant is incorrect.
The notice advises the defendant of the specific statutory classifications the State intends to rely on in seeking an enhanced sentence. .The State is allowed to give notice under as many classifications as it chooses, where the State is prepared to show that the defendant meets the statutory criteria.
The defendant claims that the decision in State v. Bell, 747 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), invalidates this notice. That is not so. In Bell there was no specification of any specific statutory classification. In the present case the notice identified the specific statutory classifications the State intended to rely on.*
Affirmed.
*
This notice would be more than sufficient in the Fourth District. See Washington v. State, 895 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DC 2005) (granting rehearing) (approving blanket notice under section 775.084, Florida Statutes).
This court’s Bell decision has been limited in certain respects by the later decision in Sampson v. State, 798 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jessyca Rossman v. Gino J. Profera, 67 So. 3d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…*367] cumstances. See Ogilvie v. Ogilvie, 954 So. 2d 698, 701 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“ ‘[Cjourts have routinely held that relocation alone is not a substantial change in circumstances to support a modification of custody.’ ” (quoting Shafer v. Shafer, 898 So. 2d 1058, 1055-56 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005))); Giangrande v. Henao, 898 So. 2d 1104, 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“[The mother’s] move to a foreign country, without more, is not a substantial change of circumstances.”); Sotomayor v. Sotomayor, 891 So. 2d 559, 561 (Fla…
-
Adams v. State, 909 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…written sentencing orders are consistent with the oral pronouncement. Until that issue is resolved, we need not entertain the double jeopardy claim. On the second point, there was no defect in the notice of habitualization. See Forcelledo v. State, 898 So. 2d 1058, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). On the third point, [*965] the imposition of alternative sentencing orders does not constitute vindictive sentencing. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith. . Based o…
-
Herby Luma v. State, 903 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Forcelledo v. State, 898 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)(“The State [*303] is allowed to give notice under as many classifications as it chooses, where the State is prepared to show the defendant meets the statutory criteria.”); Cooper v. State, 817 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(notice…
Authorities Cited
- Washington v. State, 895 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Sampson v. State, 798 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- State v. Bell, 747 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)