McMillan v. State

42 So. 3d 842, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11291, 2010 WL 3023393
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 4, 2010·No. 4D09-3424·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court dismissed Anthony McMillan’s third Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion as impermissi-bly successive and an abuse of procedure. We agree with the trial court that most of McMillan’s third rule 3.800(a) motion is *843 successive. We discern, however, one argument in the instant motion not previously raised. Here, he asserted that, at sentencing, the trial court stated the imposition of a life sentence as a habitual violent felony offender was mandatory, when, in fact, such a sentence was permissive. We agree with McMillan that the life sentence was permissive, not mandatory, but find the error harmless as a matter of law since McMillan was eligible for a life sentence. See Brooks v. State, 969 So.2d 238, 239 (Fla.2007) (adopting “could-have-been-imposed harmless error test” for rule 3.800(a) motions). Nonetheless, because this argument was raised for the first time in the instant motion, we are compelled to deny it on the merits.

Affirmed.

GROSS, C.J.; STEVENSON and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

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

McMillan v. State, 42 So. 3d 842, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11291, 2010 WL 3023393 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

42 So. 3d 842 (McMillan v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

ANTHONY MCMILLAN v. STATE OF FLORIDA
254 So. 3d 1002 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)