TROY JACKSON, 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 court held that the appellant's claim that he was not represented by counsel at a prior violation of probation hearing is procedurally barred and cannot be determined from the face of the record.
Appellant was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender. He filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, claimi…
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 Habitual Violent Felony Offender (Hvfo) cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. In 1996, appellant was convicted of two counts of armed robbery in this case and sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender (HVFO) to life in prison. Appellant claims in this motion that he was not represented by counsel at a 1992 violation of probation (VOP) hearing that resulted in his adjudication of guilt in a 1989 case that was used as a predicate for the HVFO sentence.1 See State ex rel. Alton v. Conkling, 421 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (citing Burgett v. State of Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 88 S.Ct. 258, 19 L.Ed.2d 319 (1967) (“Previous convictions obtained without counsel or waiver of counsel may not be used to enhance punishment under a recidivist statute”)).
Appellant’s claim cannot be determined from the face of the record and is procedurally barred. Appellant did not timely challenge the 1992 revocation of his probation; nor did he challenge the use of the 1992 conviction as a predicate offense at sentencing. The issue should have been raised at sentencing, and on direct appeal if necessary, or in a timely motion for postconviction relief under Rule 3.850. Even if the claim was not barred, appellant’s motion is insufficient as appellant failed to allege that he did not waive counsel at the VOP hearing and that he did not otherwise qualify as an HVFO.
Affirmed.
STEVENSON, TAYLOR and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1967)
- State v. The Honorable Virgil B. Conkling, 421 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)