Salters v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Salters v. State

805 So. 2d 1004, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17653, 2001 WL 1589599

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 14, 2001

DocketNo. 2D01-1708

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 805 So. 2d 1004 (Salters 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

Salters v. State, 805 So. 2d 1004, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17653, 2001 WL 1589599 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.

Eldred Salters appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. The motion is styled as a rule 3.850 motion and, as such, is untimely. However, Salters’ meritorious claim is cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, and is not time-barred. We reverse the order of the trial court on this single meritorious issue and affirm it in all other respects.

Salters entered pleas in two cases in 1996. The trial court pronounced him a habitual offender and sentenced him to prison for ten years in case number 96-08502. The court then suspended his sentence, placing him on two years’ community control and two years’ probation. He violated the terms of his supervision and was sentenced as a habitual offender to a ten-year prison sentence.

Salters’ initial sentence was not a habitual offender sentence. Consequently, unless his original sentence was the result of a negotiated plea, he must be sentenced pursuant to the sentencing guidelines. See Pankhurst v. State, 796 So.2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

FULMER and GREEN, JJ., concur.

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