Harden v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harden v. State

595 So. 2d 585, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 3318, 1992 WL 57894

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 25, 1992

DocketNo. 91-01593

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 595 So. 2d 585 (Harden 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

Harden v. State, 595 So. 2d 585, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 3318, 1992 WL 57894 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHAN, Judge.

We affirm the denial of defendant’s motion filed under rule 3.800, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, to correct an alleged illegal sentence.

The sentence, which involved the stacking of mandatory minimum sentences, is inconsistent with the principle announced in Branam v. State, 554 So.2d 512 (Fla.1990). See also Boom v. State, 574 So.2d 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Nonetheless, it appears to have been proper at the time it was imposed and, in fact, subsequently affirmed by this court in Harden v. State, 541 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). See Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983).

As in McCuiston v. State, 507 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), approved, 534 So.2d 1144 (Fla.1988), the change in the law bearing upon the circumstances of this case was “not such a fundamental ... change as will cast serious doubt on the veracity or integrity of ... [the] original trial proceeding,” 507 So.2d at 1188, and “was not illegal, per se, as being above the statutory maximum,” 534 So.2d at 1147. See also Brown v. State, 588 So.2d 651, 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (“[T]he fact that the original reasons for departure were subsequently held to be invalid in unrelated decisions does not constitute fundamental or constitutional error warranting post conviction relief on the grounds of sentence illegality.”).

Affirmed.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.

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

LEHAN, Judge.

We affirm the denial of defendant’s motion filed under rule 3.800, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, to correct an alleged illegal sentence.

The sentence, which involved the stacking of mandatory minimum sentences, is inconsistent with the principle announced in Branam v. State, 554 So.2d 512 (Fla.1990). See also Boom v. State, 574 So.2d 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Nonetheless, it appears to have been proper at the time it was imposed and, in fact, subsequently affirmed by this court in Harden v. State, 541 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). See Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983).

As in McCuiston v. State, 507 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), approved, 534 So.2d 1144 (Fla.1988), the change in the law bearing upon the circumstances of this case was “not such a fundamental ... change as will cast serious doubt on the veracity or integrity of ... [the] original trial proceeding,” 507 So.2d at 1188, and “was not illegal, per se, as being above the statutory maximum,” 534 So.2d at 1147. See also Brown v. State, 588 So.2d 651, 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (“[T]he fact that the original reasons for departure were subsequently held to be invalid in unrelated decisions does not constitute fundamental or constitutional error warranting post conviction relief on the grounds of sentence illegality.”).

Affirmed.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

595 So. 2d 585, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 3318, 1992 WL 57894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harden-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack