Dubose v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dubose v. State

714 So. 2d 1173, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9673, 1998 WL 429057

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 31, 1998

DocketNo. 98-02258

StatusPublished

This text of 714 So. 2d 1173 (Dubose 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

Dubose v. State, 714 So. 2d 1173, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9673, 1998 WL 429057 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Dubose challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence. Dubose argued that his case fell within the window during which portions of the habitual offender statute were determined to be unconstitutional in Johnson v. State, 616 So.2d 1 (Fla.1993). The trial judge denied the motion on the basis that Dubose did not qualify for habitualization on the basis of a conviction for aggravated battery — the defect in Johnson’s violent habitual offender sentence which necessitated its vacation. In support of the order of denial, the trial court appended the qualifying criminal judgments, which include convictions from the state of Maryland. The use of out-of-state convictions is the second defect in habitual offender sentences caused by the unconstitutional amendment to the statute. See Baxter v. State, 616 So.2d 47 (Fla.1993). Nevertheless, also accompanying the order of denial are Florida criminal convictions utilized to justify the habitual offender sentence, which legitimize the sentence without resort to the Maryland convictions.

Accordingly, the order of the trial court is affirmed

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and BLUE and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Dubose challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence. Dubose argued that his case fell within the window during which portions of the habitual offender statute were determined to be unconstitutional in Johnson v. State, 616 So.2d 1 (Fla.1993). The trial judge denied the motion on the basis that Dubose did not qualify for habitualization on the basis of a conviction for aggravated battery — the defect in Johnson’s violent habitual offender sentence which necessitated its vacation. In support of the order of denial, the trial court appended the qualifying criminal judgments, which include convictions from the state of Maryland. The use of out-of-state convictions is the second defect in habitual offender sentences caused by the unconstitutional amendment to the statute. See Baxter v. State, 616 So.2d 47 (Fla.1993). Nevertheless, also accompanying the order of denial are Florida criminal convictions utilized to justify the habitual offender sentence, which legitimize the sentence without resort to the Maryland convictions.

Accordingly, the order of the trial court is affirmed

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and BLUE and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

714 So. 2d 1173, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9673, 1998 WL 429057, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dubose-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack