ANTONIO Z. HENDERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The appellate court affirmed the denial of the appellant's motion to correct his sentence and prohibited him from filing further pro se appeals related to that sentence. The court found his sentence to be legal and not exceeding statutory maximums.
The court held that the denial of the motion to correct sentence was proper and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court also held that the appellant is prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals or petitions concerning this sentence unless reviewed and signed by an attorney.
[1] A motion to correct sentence under rule 3.800(a) is properly denied when the sentence imposed is legal and does not exceed the statutory maximum penalty.
[2] Issues regarding an invalid departure sentence based on a violation of probation should be raised on direct appeal.
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“Appellant’s sentence of fifteen years incarceration following the revocation of probation is legal and does not exceed the statutory maximum penalty for a second degree felony.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the legality of the sentence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant filed a fourth motion to correct his sentence, which was denied. He had previously been warned about filing further appeals without atto…
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 Rule 3.800(A) Motion To Correct Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The order denying Appellant’s fourth rule 3.800(a) motion to correct sentence is affirmed.
On September 21, 2007, this Court directed Appellant to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing any further appeals or petitions pertaining to his sentence in Putnam County Case No. 98-364, unless reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida. See generally, State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999).
Appellant filed a response which has been carefully reviewed by this Court. Appellant’s sentence of fifteen years incarceration following the revocation of probation is legal and does not exceed the statutory maximum penalty for a second degree felony. If Appellant received an invalid departure sentence based on his violation of probation, that issue should have been raised on direct appeal. See Holloway v. State, 668 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Rouse v. State, 601 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), review denied, 604 So. 2d 487 (Fla.1992).
Appellant has continuously raised sentencing guideline scoresheet issues which have no bearing on his 15-year sentence, as the departure sentence was not subject to the range provided by his scoresheet. Appellant is hereby prohibited from filing any further appeals or petitions in this court regarding the sentence he received in Putnam County Case No. 98-364, unless reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida. The clerk of this court shall not accept any further pro se pleadings or appeals from Appellant which relate to the sentence in this case. See Freeman v. State, 794 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), review dismissed, 906 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 2005); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2005); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
AFFIRMED; future pro se filings PROHIBITED; certified opinion FORWARDED to Department of Corrections.
GRIFFIN, SAWAYA and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Rouse v. State, 601 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Holloway v. State, 668 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Freeman v. State, 794 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)