RONALD PRUDENT, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Habitual Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
ROTHENBERG, Judge.
Ronald Prudent appeals his thirty year sentence as a habitual offender, asserting that he does not qualify as a habitual offender because he had received probation for two of the prior convictions relied upon. He asserts that probation is not a sentence, and therefore cannot be relied upon as a qualifying offense for an enhanced penalty under the habitual offender statute. As Prudent recognizes, his position is contrary to this court’s recent decision in State v. Del Castillo, 890 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). See also Teal v. State, 862 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), appeal docketed, No. SC04-102 (Fla.2004); McCall v. State, 862 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), appeal docketed, No. SC04-136 (Fla.2004). We therefore affirm, and certify conflict with Richardson v. State, 884 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), appeal docketed, No. SC04-174 (Fla.2004).
Affirmed; conflict certified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 906 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…orrectly explained in her order denying relief, there is disagreement among the district courts in Florida regarding the date of conviction for purposes of habitual offender sentencing and the sequential sentencing requirement. See Prudent v. State, 898 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)(certifying conflict with Richardson v. State, 884 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) on this issue); State v. Del Castillo, 890 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)(probation is a “conviction” and constitutes a “sentence” under the habitual…
Authorities Cited
- Erick Richardson v. State, 884 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- McCALL v. State, 862 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Teal v. State, 862 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- State v. DEL Castillo, 890 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)