Mack v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mack v. State

901 So. 2d 414, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 7236, 2005 WL 1163113

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 18, 2005

DocketNo. 3D05-819

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 901 So. 2d 414 (Mack 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

Mack v. State, 901 So. 2d 414, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 7236, 2005 WL 1163113 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Scottie Mack appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).

We affirm the denial of the claim of defendant-appellant Mack under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The Ap-prendi decision does not apply to sentences under Florida’s prison releasee reoffender statute. See Gudinas v. State, 879 So.2d 616, 618 (Fla.2004); Robinson v. State, 793 So.2d 891, 892-93 (Fla.2001); McGregor v. State, 789 So.2d 976, 977-78 (Fla.2001).

The defendant’s claim that his crime should have been classified as burglary of an unoccupied, rather than occupied, structure has already been decided against him in a previous motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and is thus barred. Even if the issue were properly before us, the claim has no merit. See McAllister v. State, 859 So.2d 611, 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (burglary of a garage which is attached to a house is burglary of a dwelling).

Affirmed.

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