From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ford v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Aug 9, 2000
763 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Summary

holding that a habitual offender sentence is not a guidelines sentence even if the actual sentence imposed coincides with the bottom of the guidelines

Summary of this case from Nix v. State

Opinion

No. 4D00-2286

Opinion filed August 9, 2000 JULY TERM 2000

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800(a) motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Howard C. Berman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 97-5140CFA02.

James B. Ford, Century, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.


We affirm appellant's 1997 sentence as an habitual offender, as such sentences are not affected by the supreme court's decision in Heggs v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S359 (Fla. May 4, 2000) (revised opinion). An habitual offender sentence is not a guidelines sentence even where, as here, the actual sentence imposed coincides with the bottom of guidelines.

GUNTHER, POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ford v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Aug 9, 2000
763 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

holding that a habitual offender sentence is not a guidelines sentence even if the actual sentence imposed coincides with the bottom of the guidelines

Summary of this case from Nix v. State
Case details for

Ford v. State

Case Details

Full title:JAMES B. FORD, Appellant v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Aug 9, 2000

Citations

763 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Citing Cases

Pitts v. State

Raymond Pitts, the appellant, appeals an order summarily denying his motion to correct illegal sentence,…

Nix v. State

The State argues that because Nix was found to be a habitual offender, Nix is not entitled to resentencing,…