Moten v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moten v. State

735 So. 2d 566, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 7581, 1999 WL 371352

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 9, 1999

DocketNo. 99-1357

StatusPublished

This text of 735 So. 2d 566 (Moten 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

Moten v. State, 735 So. 2d 566, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 7581, 1999 WL 371352 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

As defendant’s claims do not amount to claims of illegal sentence, the order denying relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is affirmed. See Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193 (Fla.1995). Assuming the merits were properly before us, the court would also point out that under the version of the habitual offender statute applicable to this case (offense date June 11, 1993), the statute no longer required a finding that imposition of a habitual offender disposition was necessary for protection of the public. See § 775.084(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (1991); ch. 88-131, § 6, at 708, Laws of Fla. (deleting requirement for “a finding that the imposition of sentence under this section is necessary for the protection of the public from further criminal activity by the defendant”); State v. Rucker, 613 So.2d 460, 462 (Fla. 1993). Thus, defendant is incorrect in arguing that such a finding was required in his case. Further, under this version of the habitual offender statute, a habitual offender disposition was exempt from the sentencing guidelines, see id. § 775.084(4)(e), and accordingly, no departure reasons were required.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

As defendant’s claims do not amount to claims of illegal sentence, the order denying relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is affirmed. See Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193 (Fla.1995). Assuming the merits were properly before us, the court would also point out that under the version of the habitual offender statute applicable to this case (offense date June 11, 1993), the statute no longer required a finding that imposition of a habitual offender disposition was necessary for protection of the public. See § 775.084(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (1991); ch. 88-131, § 6, at 708, Laws of Fla. (deleting requirement for “a finding that the imposition of sentence under this section is necessary for the protection of the public from further criminal activity by the defendant”); State v. Rucker, 613 So.2d 460, 462 (Fla. 1993). Thus, defendant is incorrect in arguing that such a finding was required in his case. Further, under this version of the habitual offender statute, a habitual offender disposition was exempt from the sentencing guidelines, see id. § 775.084(4)(e), and accordingly, no departure reasons were required.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

735 So. 2d 566, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 7581, 1999 WL 371352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moten-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack