ASHLEY v. STATE (2002)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District.

James ASHLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D01-2334.

Decided: May 01, 2002

Before COPE, FLETCHER and RAMIREZ, JJ.

James Ashley, in proper person. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Thomas C. Mielke, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

James Ashley appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm.

We conclude that defendant-appellant Ashley qualifies as a habitual offender under the version of the statute in effect on the date of his crime, October 22, 1992. See § 775.084, Fla. Stat. (1991). For that version of the habitual offender statute, there was no sequential conviction requirement. State v. Barnes, 595 So.2d 22 (Fla.1992).

Defendant argues that the habitual offender findings had to be made by the jury on account of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). For present purposes we need not address the defendant's claim that Apprendi is retroactive. Assuming for purposes of discussion that it is retroactive, the Apprendi decision does not apply to the adjudication of a defendant as a habitual offender under the Florida habitual offender statute. Saldo v. State, 789 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Robbinson v. State, 784 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network