Horttor v. State

790 So. 2d 1263, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11253, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1936
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 10, 2001·No. No. 1D00-4067·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant claims, on direct appeal, that (i) he was unlawfully sentenced under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, and (ii) the Act is unconstitutional according to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). We affirm Appellant’s conviction and sentence.

Appellant’s argument that he was unlawfully sentenced was not preserved for appellate review. Stinson v. State, 785 So.2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)(error previously considered fundamental could no longer be raised for the first time on appeal, citing amendments to Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b) and Harvey v. State, 786 So.2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)(on motion for rehearing; questions certified to the Florida Supreme Court)).

The Florida Supreme Court has rejected Appellant’s argument that the Act is unconstitutional under Apprendi. McDowell v. State, 789 So.2d 956 (Fla.2001).

Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s conviction and sentence without prejudice to his right to seek appropriate postconviction relief.

AFFIRMED.

MINER, DAVIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

Horttor v. State, 790 So. 2d 1263, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11253, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1936 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

790 So. 2d 1263 (Horttor v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Stinson v. State
785 So. 2d 759 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Harvey v. State
786 So. 2d 28 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
McDowell v. State
789 So. 2d 956 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2001)