JASON MICHAEL OSBORN, 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.
Jason Osborn appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief challenging his ten-year habitual offender sentence. The court affirmed, rejecting his claims that notice of habitualization was deficient, his sentencing guidelines scoresheet was incorrect, and his sentence violated Apprendi and Blakely.
The court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief. Osborn's plea agreement to be sentenced as a habitual offender waived any claim regarding notice deficiency. His sentencing guidelines scoresheet claim was immaterial because habitual offender sentences are exempt from guidelines. His Blakely claim was inapplicable because his sentence was final before Blakely and Blakely is not retroactive. His Apprendi claim lacked merit because Apprendi does not apply to habitual offender adjudication under Florida law.
[1] A negotiated plea agreement to be sentenced as a habitual offender waives any claim of deficiency regarding notice of habitualization.
[2] A habitual offender sentence is exempt from the sentencing guidelines, rendering claims of incorrect sentencing guidelines scoresheets immaterial.
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 agreement to be sentenced as a habitual offender waives any claim of deficiency regarding notice of habitualization.”
Establishes that Osborn's negotiated plea waived any notice defects
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOsborn entered into a negotiated plea agreement in two Miami-Dade County cases, agreeing to plead guilty and receive a ten-year sentence as a habitual…
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 Negotiated Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jason M. Osborn appeals an order denying postconviction relief. Defendant-appellant Osborn filed a motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), but the trial court correctly treated it as a timely motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm.
The defendant entered into a negotiated plea with the State in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court case numbers 02-29354 and 02-36495. Under the plea bargain, the defendant agreed to enter a guilty plea and to be sentenced to a ten-year sentence as a habitual offender. The court sentenced the defendant in accordance with the agreement.
In his motion for postconviction relief, the defendant claims that a notice of habitualization was not filed. As to case number 02-29354, the record conclusively refutes the defendant’s claim. The record excerpts reflect that a written notice was filed and oral notice was given as well.
As to case number 02-36495, there is no indication in the record excerpts that notice of habitualization was given. However, the defendant with the advice of counsel entered into a guilty plea as a habitual offender in both cases, in exchange for a sentence of ten years.
The agreement to be sentenced as a habitual offender waives any claim of deficiency regarding notice of habitualization. See Hope v. State, 766 So. 2d 343, 344 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
The defendant claims that his sentencing guidelines scoresheet was incorrect. That claim is immaterial as a habitual offender sentence is exempt from the sentencing guidelines. See § 775.084(4)(e), Fla. Stat. (2002).
The defendant claims that his habitual offender sentence is impermissible under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). The decision in Blakely is inapplicable to the defendant’s case, because the defendant’s sentence became final prior to the announcement of Blakely, and Blakely is not retroactive. See Modest v. State, 892 So. 2d 566, 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
The defendant’s claim under Apprendi is without merit. “[T]he Apprendi decision does not apply to the adjudication of a defendant as a habitual offender under the Florida habitual offender statute.” Ashley v. State, 816 So. 2d 170, 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (citations omitted).
Finally, defendant argues that the trial court failed to attach portions of the record refuting the defendant’s claims. The defendant is incorrect. Appropriate record excerpts have been included in the record on appeal. These were attached to the State’s response filed in the trial court. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Sirron Johnson, 122 So. 3d 856 (Fla. 2013)…Boardman v. State, 69 So. 3d 367, 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“No matter how one measures the finality of his sentences, they were final before Blakely issued. Accordingly, he is not entitled to [postconviction] relief under Blakely.”); Osborn v. State, 915 So. 2d 189, 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“[T]he defendant’s sentence became final prior to the announcement of Blakely, and Blakely is not retroactive.”). C. Whether Blakely Applies Retroactively When this Court or the United States Supreme Court announces a new…
-
Bayron v. State, 921 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…nt admits in his motion that his sentence as a habitual felony offender was as a result of a negotiated plea. “The agreement to be sentenced as a habitual offender waives any claim of deficiency regarding notice of habitualization.” Osborn v. State, 915 So. 2d 189, 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Hope v. State, 766 So. 2d 343, 344 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). The defendant also claims his attorneys (he alleges he was represented by five separate assistant public defenders during the pendency of his case), provided ine…
-
Ojeda v. State, 948 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…3.800, and the time for filing a rule 3.850 motion, in this case, has long passed. The remaining issue raised in Ojeda’s 3.800 motion regarding scoresheet errors was correctly rejected in light of his habitual offender sentence. See Osborn v. State, 915 So. 2d 189, 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)(“a habitual offender sentence is exempt from the sentencing guidelines”); Robinson v. State, 654 So. 2d 1302, 1303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)(“habitual offender sentences are not subject to the sentencing guidelines”). There being n…
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
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004)
- Hope v. State, 766 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Modest v. State, 892 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Ashley v. State, 816 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)