JOEL DANIEL BABIE, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed denial of motion to correct illegal sentence, holding that claims of involuntary guilty plea and alleged double jeopardy from concurrent sentencing as both a firearm offender and habitual violent felony offender do not constitute illegal sentences under Rule 3.800(a).
A claim that a guilty plea was involuntary due to misunderstanding habitualization consequences, and a claim that concurrent sentencing under both firearm and habitual violent felony offender statutes violates double jeopardy, do not render a sentence illegal under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
[1] A claim that a guilty plea was involuntary due to defendant's misunderstanding of habitualization consequences does not constitute grounds for relief under Florida Rule o…
[2] Concurrent sentencing of a defendant as both a firearm offender under section 775.087 and a habitual violent felony offender under section 775.084 does not violate double…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBabie pleaded guilty in September 2003 and received three-year concurrent terms for possession of a firearm while also being sentenced as a habitual v…
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 Habitualization cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Joel Daniel Babie appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sen tence. Defendant-appellant Babie maintains that his guilty plea was involuntary because he did not understand the consequences of habitualization. That is not a claim which renders a sentence “illegal” for purpose’of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the trial court’s order, without prejudice to the defendant to refile those claims by motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Based on the defendant’s assertion that the plea was entered into in September of 2003, the time limit for filing a Rule 3.850 motion has not yet expired. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). We express no opinion on the merits of any such motion.
The defendant also argues that his sentence is illegal because he received three-year concurrent terms for possession of a firearm as well as being sentenced as an HVFO. He claims that being sentenced under both statutory provisions is “illegal” as a double jeopardy violation. That argument is without merit. See § 775.087(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2001) (“If the mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment pursuant to this section are less than the sentences that could be imposed as authorized by s. 775.082, s. 775.084 [the habitual offender statute] Punishment Code under chapter 921, then the sentence imposed by the court must include the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment as required in this section.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pride v. State, 973 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…ional convictions. In the Rule 3.800(a) motion, the defendant also attempted to raise the claim that his plea was involuntary. We entirely agree with the trial court that such a claim is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Babie v. State, 905 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). The trial court denied the Rule 3.850 motion as being untimely. We agree with the trial court that the motion was untimely and that no exception to the time limit was applicable. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded…