JERMAINE ATTERBURY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sequential Conviction Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Jermaine Atterbury, appeals the circuit court’s denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. Appellant argues that his habitual offender sentence was illegally imposed as one of the two prior convictions used to impose the sentence was reversed on appeal. In lower court case 96-10178, appellant was convicted and sentenced to two years probation. The circuit court later revoked appellant’s probation and imposed a term of incarceration. This court reversed the revocation of probation on appeal. Atterbury v. State, 740 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). On remand the lower court vacated the revocation of probation and terminated probation.
We affirm the denial of appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion as the conviction in case 96-10178 was not vacated. Appellant’s prior convictions satisfy the sequential conviction requirement of the habitual offender statute. § 775.084(5), Fla. Stat. (2004). However, affirmance is without prejudice for appellant to raise, in another rule 3.800(a) motion, the issue of whether his probationary term ended within five years of committing the new offenses pursuant to section 775.084(l)(a)2.b., Florida Statutes.
WARNER, FARMER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Atterbury v. State, 991 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…eal. The trial court denied Atterbury’s motion, and we affirmed finding Atterbury’s conviction in the 1997 case was not vacated even though the revocation of probation, adjudication of guilt, and prison sentence had been vacated. Atterbury v. State, 940 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). We affirmed without prejudice for Atterbury to raise in a subsequent rule 3.800(a) motion, the issue of whether his probationary term ended within five years of committing the current offenses. Id. He then filed the current mot…
-
Scott v. State, 958 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…ng it, Blakely. Appellant acknowledges that this court’s decisions in Garcia v. State, 914 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), Hamilton v. State, 914 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), Thomas v. State, 914 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), and Brown v. State, 940 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), are contrary to his position. We certified conflict in those cases with the First District Court of Appeal in Isaac v. State, 911 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Appellant urges this court to reconsider those decisions or certif…
Authorities Cited
- Atterbury v. State, 740 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)