Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Babie v. State, 3D05-1049 (2005)

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Number: 3D05-1049 Visitors: 14
Judges: Cope, Shepherd and Rothenberg
Filed: Jun. 29, 2005
Latest Update: Apr. 07, 2017
Summary: 905 So. 2d 986 (2005) Joel Daniel BABIE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 3D05-1049. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. June 29, 2005. Joel Daniel Babie, in proper person. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, for appellee. Before COPE, SHEPHERD and ROTHENBERG, JJ. PER CURIAM. Joel Daniel Babie appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. *987 Defendant-appellant Babie maintains that his guilty plea was involuntary because he did not unde
More
905 So. 2d 986 (2005)

Joel Daniel BABIE, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D05-1049.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 29, 2005.

Joel Daniel Babie, in proper person.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, for appellee.

Before COPE, SHEPHERD and ROTHENBERG, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Joel Daniel Babie appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. *987 Defendant-appellant Babie maintains that his guilty plea was involuntary because he did not understand the consequences of habitualization. That is not a claim which renders a sentence "illegal" for purpose of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the trial court's order, without prejudice to the defendant to refile those claims by motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Based on the defendant's assertion that the plea was entered into in September of 2003, the time limit for filing a Rule 3.850 motion has not yet expired. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). We express no opinion on the merits of any such motion.

The defendant also argues that his sentence is illegal because he received three-year concurrent terms for possession of a firearm as well as being sentenced as an HVFO. He claims that being sentenced under both statutory provisions is "illegal" as a double jeopardy violation. That argument is without merit. See ยง 775.087(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2001) ("If the mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment pursuant to this section are less than the sentences that could be imposed as authorized by s. 775.082, s. 775.084 [the habitual offender statute] Punishment Code under chapter 921, then the sentence imposed by the court must include the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment as required in this section.").

Affirmed.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer