NADRIAN BUTTS, 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 a general notice of enhancement is sufficient to seek habitual offender status, and Rule 3.800(a) cannot be used to challenge the sufficiency of that notice.
Nadrian Butts appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing the notice of enhancement was insufficient to seek habitual of…
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 Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Nadrian Butts appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He argues that the general notice of enhancement under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1999), filed in his case gave insufficient notice that the State would seek to have him adjudicated a habitual offender. First, Rule 3.800(a) cannot be used to attack the sufficiency of a notice of enhancement. See Cooper v. State, 817 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
Second, this court has indicated that a general notice of habitualization is sufficient where the defendant is sentenced “as a habitual felony offender, the least harsh of the ... classifications provided in section 775.084.” Sampson v. State, 798 So. 2d 824, 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
Finally, defendant-appellant Butts objects to his being resentenced as a habitual offender on remand from Butts v. State, 855 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), after the defendant had previously been sentenced as a habitual offender. Under the terms of the remand, there was no limitation on the sentence which could be imposed. In that situation, the defendant is clearly on notice that the State may again seek to have the defendant adjudicated a habitual offender. For all of the above reasons, the motion to correct illegal sentence was appropriately denied.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Middleton v. State, 900 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Reese v. State, 899 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Butts v. State, 898 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 2005); Cooper v. State, 817 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).…
-
Butler v. State, 7 So. 3d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Butts v. State, 898 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).…
-
Turner v. State, 954 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Butts v. State, 898 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). STONE, GROSS and MAY, 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
- Miller Seabrooks v. State, 817 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Cooper v. State, 817 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Sampson v. State, 798 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Nadrian Butts v. State, 855 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Osiel Guerrero v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Unicity Imports Corp., 855 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)