Calloway v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Calloway v. State

718 So. 2d 268, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11313, 1998 WL 558883

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 4, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 718 So. 2d 268 (Calloway v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Calloway v. State, 718 So. 2d 268, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11313, 1998 WL 558883 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

W. SHARP, Judge.

Calloway appeals his sentence imposed after he pled no contest to one count of burglary of an occupied structure.¹ The judge sentenced Calloway to ten years as an habitual offender. His main point on appeal is that the court erred in imposing an habitual offender sentence because it employed the pre-1993 criteria and ignored the additional requirement that one of the qualifying prior offenses not be for drug possession.² We affirm.

At the plea hearing, the judge informed Calloway that the state had announced its intention to seek enhanced penalties for habitual offender treatment, with a maximum possible sentence of ten years in prison. Sentencing was held July 7, 1997, and the parties agreed the sentencing guidelines scoresheet, which showed a permissible guidelines sentencing range of 15 to 25 months in prison, was correct. Defense counsel did not object to the sentence at the sentencing hearing. He failed to file a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), as well as a motion to correct the sentence after the alleged sentencing error had occurred, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h).

Thus, we must conclude that the sentencing error was not preserved and therefore cannot be raised in the direct appeal. See § 921.051 (effective July 1, 1996); Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b). Hubbard v. State, 691 So.2d 645 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), citing Middleton v. State, 689 So.2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Further, even if we were to reach the merits of Calloway’s appeal, there was sufficient evidence adduced in the record to establish Calloway had been convicted at a prior time of two nondrug-related felonies.

AFFIRMED.

COBB and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

W. SHARP, Judge.

Calloway appeals his sentence imposed after he pled no contest to one count of burglary of an occupied structure.¹ The judge sentenced Calloway to ten years as an habitual offender. His main point on appeal is that the court erred in imposing an habitual offender sentence because it employed the pre-1993 criteria and ignored the additional requirement that one of the qualifying prior offenses not be for drug possession.² We affirm.

At the plea hearing, the judge informed Calloway that the state had announced its intention to seek enhanced penalties for habitual offender treatment, with a maximum possible sentence of ten years in prison. Sentencing was held July 7, 1997, and the parties agreed the sentencing guidelines scoresheet, which showed a permissible guidelines sentencing range of 15 to 25 months in prison, was correct. Defense counsel did not object to the sentence at the sentencing hearing. He failed to file a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), as well as a motion to correct the sentence after the alleged sentencing error had occurred, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h).

Thus, we must conclude that the sentencing error was not preserved and therefore cannot be raised in the direct appeal. See § 921.051 (effective July 1, 1996); Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b). Hubbard v. State, 691 So.2d 645 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), citing Middleton v. State, 689 So.2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Further, even if we were to reach the merits of Calloway’s appeal, there was sufficient evidence adduced in the record to establish Calloway had been convicted at a prior time of two nondrug-related felonies.

AFFIRMED.

COBB and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

718 So. 2d 268, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11313, 1998 WL 558883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calloway-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

W. SHARP, Judge.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack