Middleton v. State, 96-3019

Decision Date22 January 1997
Docket NumberNo. 96-3019,96-3019
Citation689 So.2d 304
Parties22 Fla. L. Weekly D259 Arlecia Michelle MIDDLETON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Edward C. Hill, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

ALLEN, Judge.

In this direct criminal appeal, the appellant challenges habitual offender sentences imposed for possession of cocaine. Because the appellant failed to raise this issue either at sentencing or in a timely motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), we affirm.

The appellant pled no contest to two counts of sale of cocaine and two counts of possession of cocaine in exchange for a maximum sentence of six years. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a habitual offender on all counts to concurrent 48 month terms followed by one year of probation. The appellant challenges only the habitual offender sentences for her two convictions for possession of cocaine.

Section 775.084(1)(a)3 excludes from habitual offender sentencing the crime of possession of cocaine. See, e.g., Hayes v. State, 677 So.2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The state concedes it was error to habitualize the appellant on the two possession counts but argues that the appellant is precluded from raising the issue on appeal because she failed to raise the issue at sentencing or in a timely 3.800 motion before the trial court. The state's argument is well taken under the amendments to Chapter 924, Florida Statutes, effectuated by Chapter 96-248, Laws of Fla. (1996).

Section 924.051(4), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), provides:

If a defendant pleads nolo contendere without expressly reserving the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue, or if a defendant pleads guilty without expressly reserving the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue, the defendant may not appeal the judgment or sentence.

The statute on its face does not make exception for sentencing errors apparent on the face of the record. However, the supreme court has recognized an inconsistency within the statute. The court recognized that the statute

states that a defendant pleading guilty or nolo contendere without expressly reserving the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue cannot appeal the sentence. However, a defendant has not yet been sentenced at the time of the plea. Obviously, one cannot expressly reserve a sentencing error which has not yet occurred.

See Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 685 So.2d 773 (Fla.1996). Thus, to enable a defendant to raise...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Maddox v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 13, 1998
    ...(Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (departure sentence); Johnson v. State, 697 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (departure sentence); Middleton v. State, 689 So.2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) In view of our holding today, we must recede from several of our earlier opinions. As indicated, this court will no long......
  • Jordan v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 16, 1998
    ..."The statute on its face does not make exception for sentencing errors apparent on the face of the record." Middleton v. State, 689 So.2d 304, 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). As the en banc Fifth District has At the intermediate appellate level, we are accustomed to simply correcting errors when w......
  • Starkes v. State, 1D08-1219.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 14, 2009
    ...... is not a violation of s. 893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance"); Middleton v. State, 689 So.2d 304, 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (observing that "[s]ection 775.084(1)(a)3 excludes from habitual offender sentencing the crime of possession of cocaine"). T......
  • Nelson v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 1, 1998
    ...We have applied the new provisions in denying relief on direct appeal for unpreserved sentencing errors. See, e.g., Middleton v. State, 689 So.2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). But, consistent with the legislative intent that section 924.051 not be applied to preclude relief on direct appeal for ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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