Debuisson v. State, 3D06-1857.

Decision Date20 December 2006
Docket NumberNo. 3D06-1857.,3D06-1857.
Citation947 So.2d 531
PartiesRenaud DEBUISSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Thomas John Butler, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, for appellee.

Before RAMIREZ, WELLS, and SUAREZ, JJ.

WELLS, Judge.

Renaud Debuisson appeals from an order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 motion to correct illegal sentence in which he claims that the sentence imposed was vindictive and that he did not have the two felony convictions necessary to sentence him as a habitual felony offender. We affirm.

A vindictive sentence claim must be raised in a Rule 3.850 motion, not in a Rule 3.800 motion, and since the conviction and sentences in this case became final more than two years before the instant motion was filed, the motion would, if considered as a Rule 3.850 motion, be untimely. See Wright v. State, 891 So.2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (finding that a vindictive sentencing claim cannot be raised in a Rule 3.800 motion); Shaw v. State, 780 So.2d 188, 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (affirming the denial of a Rule 3.800 motion where, even if treated as a Rule 3.850 motion, it would be untimely).

We also find no error in the trial court's order denying relief with regard to Debuisson's claim that he was improperly sentenced as a habitual felony offender without the necessary two prior predicate felonies. The record reveals that Debuisson was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender under section 775.084(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1998), which requires only a single prior felony conviction for enhanced sentencing.

Accordingly, the order denying Debuisson's Rule 3.800 motion is affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Evans v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 18, 2008
    ...that a vindictive sentencing claim may be considered under rule 3.850, but cannot be considered under rule 3.800. See Debuisson v. State, 947 So.2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); see also St. Pierre v. State, 966 So.2d 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Wright v. State, 891 So.2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), revi......
  • Harris v. The State Of Fla.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 5, 2010
    ...3d DCA 2003), review dismissed, 25 So.3d 1221 (Fla.2009); see also Harris v. State, 12 So.3d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Debuisson v. State, 947 So.2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). ...
  • Youngblood v. State , 3D11–1436.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 13, 2011
    ...person.Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.Before RAMIREZ, SALTER and EMAS, JJ.PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Debuisson v. State, 947 So.2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). ...
  • Hughley v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 7, 2020
    ...Denied May 8, 2020Costadaryll Hughley, Mayo, pro se.No Appearance for Appellee.PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Debuisson v. State , 947 So. 2d 531, 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) ("A vindictive sentence claim must be raised in a Rule 3.850 motion, not in a Rule 3.800 motion.") (citations omitted). EVANDE......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT