RENAUD DEBUISSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 held that a claim of vindictive sentencing must be raised in a Rule 3.850 motion, not a Rule 3.800 motion, and that habitual violent felony offender status requires only one prior felony conviction.
Renaud Debuisson appealed an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing his sentence was vindictive and he lacked the required p…
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 Vindictive Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
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 Debuis-son was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender under section 775.084(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1998), which requires only a single prior felony conviction for enhanced sentencing. Accordingly, the order denying Debuis-son’s Rule 3.800 motion is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sedrick Youngblood v. State, 64 So. 3d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Debuisson v. State, 947 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).…
-
Harris v. State, 35 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…IAM. Affirmed. See Harris v. State, 902 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Harris v. State, 849 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 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).…
-
Evans v. State, 979 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…in an appeal from a denied 3.850 motion. Finally, our sister court in the third district has specifically held 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), review denied, 925 So. 2d 1032 (Fla.2006); Nowells v. State, 840 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), review denied, 8…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shaw v. State, 780 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Lacce Wright v. State, 891 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)