Milner v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Milner v. State

705 So. 2d 950, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 173, 1998 WL 5427

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 12, 1998

DocketNo. 97-3700

StatusPublished

This text of 705 So. 2d 950 (Milner 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

Milner v. State, 705 So. 2d 950, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 173, 1998 WL 5427 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the denial of his 3.800(a) motion, alleging his offense was committed during the window period when the habitual offender statute was unconstitutional, and therefore the enhancement rendered his sentence illegal by causing it to exceed the non-habitual statutory maximum for his offense. He failed to state whether he was actually affected by the unconstitutional amendments. See State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1 (Fla.1993). Nevertheless, the issue of whether appellant qualified for habitual felony offender classification and sentencing requires a factual determination and is therefore an inappropriate issue for consideration under Rule 3.800(a). See Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193 (Fla.1995); Pace v. State, 662 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

AFFIRMED.

KAHN, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the denial of his 3.800(a) motion, alleging his offense was committed during the window period when the habitual offender statute was unconstitutional, and therefore the enhancement rendered his sentence illegal by causing it to exceed the non-habitual statutory maximum for his offense. He failed to state whether he was actually affected by the unconstitutional amendments. See State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1 (Fla.1993). Nevertheless, the issue of whether appellant qualified for habitual felony offender classification and sentencing requires a factual determination and is therefore an inappropriate issue for consideration under Rule 3.800(a). See Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193 (Fla.1995); Pace v. State, 662 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

AFFIRMED.

KAHN, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

705 So. 2d 950, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 173, 1998 WL 5427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milner-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack