Qavontae MacHell Lang v. State of Florida

243 So. 3d 534
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 4, 2018
Docket16-2930
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 243 So. 3d 534 (Qavontae MacHell Lang v. State of Florida) 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
Qavontae MacHell Lang v. State of Florida, 243 So. 3d 534 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D16-2930 _____________________________

QAVONTAE MACHELL LANG,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Darlene F. Dickey, Judge.

June 4, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Qavontae MacHell Lang, contends in part that we should reverse his convictions based on ineffective assistance of counsel that is apparent on the face of the record. Except in rare cases, allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel must be raised in a postconviction proceeding brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, not on direct appeal. See Barnett v. State, 181 So. 3d 534, 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). We reject Appellant’s argument that this case meets that rare standard. While Appellant also raises what he characterizes as a double jeopardy argument, he challenges his two fifteen-year sentences, not his convictions. See State v. Williams, 854 So. 2d 215, 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (noting that a double jeopardy claim “constitutes, in reality, a challenge to [the appellee’s] convictions rather [than] his sentence”). Because Appellant did not preserve this argument, we cannot address it. See Sims v. State, 998 So. 2d 494, 504 (Fla. 2008) (“In Florida, a specific, contemporaneous objection is necessary to preserve a sentencing error.”). Our disposition does not preclude Appellant from challenging his sentences in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). See Eason v. State, 932 So. 2d 465, 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (noting that the appellant, who completed youthful offender boot camp, argued in his rule 3.800(a) motion that the trial court erred in sentencing him following his violation of probation). Finally, we have considered Appellant’s remaining arguments, which we find to be meritless.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, KELSEY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

Rocco J. Carbone, III, St. Augustine, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
243 So. 3d 534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/qavontae-machell-lang-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2018.