SILVIO ANDRES PADILLA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2005-06-22
No. 3D05-424
Before CORTINAS and ROTHENBERG, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
905 So. 2d 248 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2005) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Topics
Statutory Maximum Apprendi V. New Jersey Sentencing Guidelines Scoresheet Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Maximum cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
ROTHENBERG, Judge.

ROTHENBERG, Judge.

Upon consideration of the defendant’s motion for rehearing, we deny the motion. The defendant argues that the calculation of his sentencing guideline scoresheet violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because it includes points for victim injury, which raised his sentence beyond the statutory maximum, and the victim injury finding was not submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the defendant did not raise this issue in his motion to correct illegal sentence below, nor in his appeal to this court, we conclude that the issue is not properly before us on rehearing. Campbell v. State, 884 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)(on an appeal of a denial of a motion to correct illegal sentence, declining to address issues that were not raised in the rule 3.800(a) motion filed with the trial court); Adams v. State, 774 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(explaining that an appellate court cannot address claims raised for the first time on appeal). Therefore, the defendant’s motion for rehearing is denied.

Rehearing denied.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Gonzalez v. State, 208 So. 3d 143 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
    …pardy issue before the trial court in his second motion to correct illegal sentence, nor in his appeal from the denial of that motion (having not filed a brief), the issue was not properly before us on rehearing in Gonzalez II. See Padilla v. State, 905 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (concluding [*149] that issue was not properly before this Court on motion for rehearing where defendant did not raise issue in motion to correct illegal sentence below or on appeal). Indeed, “[a] new issue raised for the first ti…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw