Valdes v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Valdes v. State

892 So. 2d 565, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1346, 2005 WL 292991

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 9, 2005

DocketNo. 3D04-2876

StatusPublished

This text of 892 So. 2d 565 (Valdes 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

Valdes v. State, 892 So. 2d 565, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1346, 2005 WL 292991 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Julio Valdes appeals an order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus and alternative motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm.

In Miami-Dade County Circuit Court case number 0Í-13664 defendant-appellant Valdes was convicted of two second degree felonies, each having a legal maximum of fifteen years. See § 775.082(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2001).¹ The defendant was sentenced to fifteen years of probation with a special condition of twelve years incarceration.

The defendant argues that his sentences violate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), but he is incorrect. Under the applicable version of the sentencing guidelines, there is no guidelines maximum and the trial court is permitted to impose any sentence up to the legal maximum. Id. § 921.0024(2). Since the sentences here are within the legal maximum, the defendant’s argument under Apprendi is without merit.

Defendant argues that his sentence violates Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). We have held that Blakely does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. See Burgal v. State, 888 So.2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). We therefore need not consider the argument under Blakely.

Affirmed.²

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

PER CURIAM.

Julio Valdes appeals an order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus and alternative motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm.

In Miami-Dade County Circuit Court case number 0Í-13664 defendant-appellant Valdes was convicted of two second degree felonies, each having a legal maximum of fifteen years. See § 775.082(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2001).¹ The defendant was sentenced to fifteen years of probation with a special condition of twelve years incarceration.

The defendant argues that his sentences violate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), but he is incorrect. Under the applicable version of the sentencing guidelines, there is no guidelines maximum and the trial court is permitted to impose any sentence up to the legal maximum. Id. § 921.0024(2). Since the sentences here are within the legal maximum, the defendant’s argument under Apprendi is without merit.

Defendant argues that his sentence violates Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). We have held that Blakely does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. See Burgal v. State, 888 So.2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). We therefore need not consider the argument under Blakely.

Affirmed.²

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

892 So. 2d 565, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1346, 2005 WL 292991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valdes-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack