COLLIE SINGLETON, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Collie Singleton petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his habitual offender sentence on the ground that appellate counsel failed to challenge the use of predicate convictions that the original sentencing judge had not relied upon. The court denied the petition, holding that different convictions may be used at resentencing to establish habitual felony offender status, provided they are qualifying convictions.
The petition was denied because no prejudice was shown. Although different convictions may have been used than at the original sentencing, the convictions used at resentencing were qualifying convictions for habitual felony offender sentencing, and there is no prohibition against using different convictions at resentencing after reversal of the original habitual offender sentence.
[1] A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel must demonstrate that the alleged error was of such magnitude as to compromise t…
[2] Qualifying convictions relied upon by the trial court at resentencing can support habitual offender status, even if those specific convictions were not used by the origin…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When considering a challenge to appellate counsel's effectiveness, the petitioner must show that the alleged error is of such magnitude as to constitute a serious error or deficiency in performance which compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence in the correctness of the result.”
States the applicable legal standard for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSingleton was originally sentenced as a habitual violent offender using certain predicate convictions. He was then resentenced, and the trial court us…
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 Predicate Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
Collie Singleton filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claiming that his current habitual offender sentence should have been challenged on appeal, because the trial court used predicate convictions that the original sentencing judge had not relied on to habitualize petitioner. We deny the petition.
When considering a challenge to appellate counsel’s effectiveness, the petitioner must show that the alleged error is of such magnitude as to constitute a serious error or deficiency in performance which compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence in the correctness of the result. Ponticelli v. State, 941 So. 2d 1073, 1106 (Fla.2006). Because the record reflects that petitioner had qualifying convictions for habitual offender sentencing, which were relied on by the trial court, no prejudice has been shown.
Although the same convictions may not have been used by the original sentencing judge as qualifiers for a habitual violent offender sentence, this did not prevent the use of those convictions to prove habitual felony offender status upon resentencing. See Wainer v. State, 798 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (in resentencing after reversal of habitual offender sentence, state could again seek sentencing as a habitual felony offender, subject to evidence of satisfactory predictate convictions).
Petitioner misreads Alfonso v. State, 659 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). There, we reversed a habitual offender sentence where the trial court in sentencing the defendant relied on two contemporaneous convictions, which the state conceded was error. We noted that the sentencing order supplied other convictions, but the sentence must be reviewed based upon the oral pronouncement, not what the sentencing order stated. That is simply an acknowledgment that the oral pronouncement of sentence prevails over the written order. Thus, if the trial court did not use the specific convictions at sentencing, we could not affirm on a “right for the wrong reasons analysis.” We did not proclaim that the state may not use other convictions not relied upon at the original sentencing upon resentencing, and we simply reversed and remanded for resentencing. Alfonso is distinguishable from this case.
For these reasons, we deny the petition.
SHAHOOD, C.J., WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ponticelli v. State, 941 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2006)
- Wainer v. State, 798 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Alfonso v. State, 659 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)