Gadsen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gadsen v. State

805 So. 2d 910, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 14893, 2001 WL 1245886

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 19, 2001

DocketNo. 2D01-3638

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 805 So. 2d 910 (Gadsen 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

Gadsen v. State, 805 So. 2d 910, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 14893, 2001 WL 1245886 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

WHATLEY, Acting Chief Judge.

Christopher Gadsen challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm.

Gadsen alleged in his motion that his habitual offender sentences are illegal because his youthful offender convictions could not be used as predicate offenses [911]*911under the habitual offender statute. The trial court properly denied this claim. See Weford v. State, 784 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).

In his motion, Gadsen stated that all his predicate convictions were youthful offender convictions and that he was “adjudicated and sentenced on the same day” in all of those cases. The attachments to the trial court’s order support this statement. Gadsen was sentenced under a version of the habitual offender statute that required that the predicate convictions be sequential. See Markens v. State, 793 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). A claim that a habitual offender sentence is illegal because the required predicate convictions were not entered sequentially is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. See id. However, Gadsen did not raise this claim in his motion, and the trial court did not address it. Our affirmance, therefore, is without prejudice to any right Gad-sen might have to raise this claim in a subsequent facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

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

WHATLEY, Acting Chief Judge.

Christopher Gadsen challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm.

Gadsen alleged in his motion that his habitual offender sentences are illegal because his youthful offender convictions could not be used as predicate offenses [911]*911under the habitual offender statute. The trial court properly denied this claim. See Weford v. State, 784 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).

In his motion, Gadsen stated that all his predicate convictions were youthful offender convictions and that he was “adjudicated and sentenced on the same day” in all of those cases. The attachments to the trial court’s order support this statement. Gadsen was sentenced under a version of the habitual offender statute that required that the predicate convictions be sequential. See Markens v. State, 793 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). A claim that a habitual offender sentence is illegal because the required predicate convictions were not entered sequentially is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. See id. However, Gadsen did not raise this claim in his motion, and the trial court did not address it. Our affirmance, therefore, is without prejudice to any right Gad-sen might have to raise this claim in a subsequent facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

805 So. 2d 910, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 14893, 2001 WL 1245886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gadsen-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack