Clark v. State

54 So. 3d 1033, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 547, 2011 WL 222316
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 26, 2011·No. No. 4D10-1034·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to correct illegal sentence. Appellant claimed that his prior offenses for which the court withheld adjudication of guilt and placed him on probation do not qualify as predicate offenses for habitual felony offender (HFO) sentencing. Appellant is wrong. At the time appellant committed the offense for which he received the HFO sentence, the relevant section of the HFO statute provided: “For the purposes of this section, the placing of a person on probation or community control without an adjudication of guilt shall be treated as a prior conviction.” § 775.084(2), Fla. Stat. (2000); see also ch. 99-188, § 3, Laws of Fla. (effective July 1, 1999).

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

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

Clark v. State, 54 So. 3d 1033, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 547, 2011 WL 222316 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

54 So. 3d 1033 (Clark v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

TOMAS S. BURGESS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018
Roman v. State
123 So. 3d 1158 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)