CARLTON BLACK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, finding that habitual offender sentences are not subject to the 1995 sentencing guidelines and that challenges to gain-time entitlement must first be addressed by the Department of Corrections.
Appellant sought post-conviction relief, arguing the 1995 sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional and that his gain-time entitlement was illegally…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Habitual Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Carlton Black seeks review of an order that denied his motion for post-conviction relief. Black argued in his motion that the 1995 sentencing guidelines are unconstitutional. Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). He argued further that his offense (burglary of a structure) took place within the applicable window period for presenting such a challenge. See Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2000) (window period began on October 1, 1995, and closed on May 24, 1997).
We affirm that portion of the trial court’s order rejecting this challenge. Appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender to a nine-year prison term. See Arce v. State, 762 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Compare Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (trial court declined to treat defendant as a habitual offender but imposed the maximum sentence permitted under the 1995 guidelines). Pursuant to section 775.084(4)(e), Florida Statutes, a habitual offender sentence is not subject to the guidelines provisions of section 921.001, Florida Statutes.
Appellant’s challenge to career criminal sentencing provisions in the 1995 laws was also properly rejected because he was hot sentenced as a career criminal.
Appellant also argued that his gain-time entitlement was illegally reduced under chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida. We affirm the summary denial of relief on this claim as well, because appellant’s gain-time challenge must first be entertained in the Department of Corrections. If the appellant is not satisfied with its ruling, then he can file a petition for writ of mandamus with the appropriate circuit court. See Clements v. State, 761 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
AFFIRMED.
FARMER, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bostic v. State, 790 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…rejudice to appellant’s right to seek relief if available under rule 3.800(a) in a motion challenging his sentencing in the 1988 prosecution, case no. 88-22357CF10A, and in seeking gain-time relief with the Department of Corrections. Black v. State, 771 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), dismissed, Table No. SC01-245, 786 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. Feb. 9, 2001). If the appellant is not satisfied with its ruling, then he can file a petition for writ of mandamus with the appropriate circuit court. See Clements v. State, 7…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)
- Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Arce v. State, 762 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Clements v. State, 761 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Hickey v. Dunn & Corey, 761 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)