Ponton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ponton v. State

16 So. 3d 918, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 10731, 2009 WL 2382350

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 5, 2009

Docket3D09-380

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 So. 3d 918 (Ponton 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

Ponton v. State, 16 So. 3d 918, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 10731, 2009 WL 2382350 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an order denying, in part, a motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). On point one, we affirm as to the consecutive sentences as a habitual violent felony offender (HVFO) on counts fifteen and sixteen on authority of Spratling v. State, 672 So.2d 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

In point three, the defendant relies on Rutherford v. State, 820 So.2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). As to that case, we have previously explained that the Second District apparently has an internal conflict of decisions. There is no sequential conviction requirement for an adjudication as an HVFO. Williams v. State, 898 So.2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). We affirm on point three under authority of Williams. We affirm as to the remaining claims without comment.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an order denying, in part, a motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). On point one, we affirm as to the consecutive sentences as a habitual violent felony offender (HVFO) on counts fifteen and sixteen on authority of Spratling v. State, 672 So.2d 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

In point three, the defendant relies on Rutherford v. State, 820 So.2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). As to that case, we have previously explained that the Second District apparently has an internal conflict of decisions. There is no sequential conviction requirement for an adjudication as an HVFO. Williams v. State, 898 So.2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). We affirm on point three under authority of Williams. We affirm as to the remaining claims without comment.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 So. 3d 918, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 10731, 2009 WL 2382350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ponton-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack