Horn v. State
This text of 775 So. 2d 1007 (Horn 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.
Opinion
Roosevelt HORN, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Roosevelt Horn, in proper person.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Margaret Brenan, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before COPE, GERSTEN and GREEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Roosevelt Horn appeals an order denying his motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Defendant-appellant Horn contends that there is an incorrect calculation in his sentencing guidelines scoresheet. We need not address that claim because defendant was sentenced as a habitual offender and the guidelines scoresheet is irrelevant. See § 775.084(4)(g), Fla.Stat. (1995); McKnight v. State, 773 So.2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Defendant argues that his ten-year sentences exceed the legal maximum, but that is not so. Ten years is the legal maximum for a habitualized third degree felony. § 775.084(4)(a)3., Fla.Stat. (1995).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
775 So. 2d 1007, 2001 WL 37718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horn-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.