Ponton v. State

16 So. 3d 918, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 10731, 2009 WL 2382350
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 5, 2009·No. 3D09-380·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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

16 So. 3d 918 (Ponton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ponton v. Willis
172 So. 3d 574 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Ponton v. State
73 So. 3d 70 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2011)