Higginbotham v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Higginbotham v. State

833 So. 2d 883, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 150, 2003 WL 69556

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 10, 2003

DocketNo. 2D01-5654

StatusPublished

This text of 833 So. 2d 883 (Higginbotham 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

Higginbotham v. State, 833 So. 2d 883, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 150, 2003 WL 69556 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

WHATLEY, Judge.

Franklin C. Higginbotham appeals an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. We find- merit only in Higginbotham’s claim that the trial court erred in sentencing him pursuant to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act. His sentences are otherwise affirmed.

Based on the Florida Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Huggins, 802 So.2d 276 (Fla.2001), Higginbotham’s convictions [884]*884were not qualifying offenses under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act in effect at the time of his crime. § 775.082, Fla. Stat. (1997). See Jones v. State, 824 So.2d 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Jackson v. State, 817 So.2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Broughton v. State, 790 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Accordingly, we affirm Higginbotham’s habitual offender sentences but reverse the minimum mandatory portion of his sentence imposed pursuant to the Prison Releasee Reoffen-der Punishment Act.

Convictions and habitual offender sentences affirmed; prison releasee reoffen-der mandatory minimum term and designation stricken.

NORTHCUTT and SILBERMAN, JJ„ Concur.

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

WHATLEY, Judge.

Franklin C. Higginbotham appeals an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. We find- merit only in Higginbotham’s claim that the trial court erred in sentencing him pursuant to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act. His sentences are otherwise affirmed.

Based on the Florida Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Huggins, 802 So.2d 276 (Fla.2001), Higginbotham’s convictions [884]*884were not qualifying offenses under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act in effect at the time of his crime. § 775.082, Fla. Stat. (1997). See Jones v. State, 824 So.2d 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Jackson v. State, 817 So.2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Broughton v. State, 790 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Accordingly, we affirm Higginbotham’s habitual offender sentences but reverse the minimum mandatory portion of his sentence imposed pursuant to the Prison Releasee Reoffen-der Punishment Act.

Convictions and habitual offender sentences affirmed; prison releasee reoffen-der mandatory minimum term and designation stricken.

NORTHCUTT and SILBERMAN, JJ„ Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

833 So. 2d 883, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 150, 2003 WL 69556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/higginbotham-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack