ERNEST ELVERT LYONS, 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.
Appellant Lyons was convicted of driving with a suspended license (third offense) and sentenced to 30 months in prison despite having a presumptive nonstate prison sanction under Florida's sentencing guidelines. On appeal, Lyons challenged the adequacy of the trial court's findings and its reliance on prior convictions to impose a prison sentence, but the appellate court affirmed because Lyons failed to preserve these issues for appeal.
The appellate court did not address the merits of Lyons's sentencing arguments because he failed to preserve either issue for appeal by raising them at sentencing or in a rule 3.800(b) motion.
[1] A sentencing error may not be raised on appeal unless the alleged error has been first brought to the attention of the lower tribunal at the time of sentencing or by moti…
[2] A defendant must preserve sentencing issues for appeal either by raising them at the time of sentencing or by filing a motion to correct sentencing error under Florida Ru…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A sentencing error may not be raised on appeal unless the alleged error has been first brought to the attention of the lower tribunal: (1) at the time of sentencing; or (2) by motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).”
Establishes the preservation requirement for sentencing error challenges on appeal
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLyons pled no contest to DWLSR (third conviction). His sentencing scoresheet reflected only 10.7 points, which created a presumptive maximum nonstate …
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 Sentencing Error Preservation cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant pled no contest to driving while his license was canceled, suspended, or revoked (DWLSR) — third conviction. He had no agreement with or offer from the State on a sentence. He normally would have faced a maximum sentence of five years in prison for the third-degree felony. See §§ 322.34(2)(c), 775.082(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (2009). But because his score-sheet reflected only 10.7 sentence points, the presumptive maximum sentence pursuant to section 775.082(10), Florida Statutes, was a nonstate prison sanction. As permitted by the statute, the trial court found that Appellant could pose a danger to the public if a nonstate prison sanction were imposed, and sentenced Appellant to 30 months in prison with 32 days’ credit for time served. Appellant argues on appeal that the court’s written findings are insufficient to satisfy section 775.082(10), and that the court improperly used his prior DWLSR convictions to justify the prison sentence.
“A sentencing error may not be raised on appeal unless the alleged error has been first brought to the attention of the lower tribunal: (1) at the time of sentencing; or (2) by motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).” Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(e). See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b) (permitting a motion to correct any sentencing error to be filed before or pending appeal). Appellant concedes he did not argue at sentencing that the trial court could not consider his prior record in determining whether a nonstate prison *52sanction is appropriate. And the record does not reflect that Appellant raised either the trial court’s reliance on his prior record or the adequacy of the court’s written findings in a rule 3.800(b) motion. Thus Appellant preserved neither issue for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence.
AFFIRMED.
PADOVANO, ROBERTS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.