Filed: Dec. 07, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA LESTER HACKLEY, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. CASE NO. 1D12-5934 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed December 8, 2015. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. Jonathan E. Sjostrom, Judge. Shannon J. Stallings, Apalachicola, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Giselle Denise Lylen, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee,
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA LESTER HACKLEY, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. CASE NO. 1D12-5934 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed December 8, 2015. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. Jonathan E. Sjostrom, Judge. Shannon J. Stallings, Apalachicola, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Giselle Denise Lylen, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, f..
More
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
LESTER HACKLEY, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D12-5934
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed December 8, 2015.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.
Jonathan E. Sjostrom, Judge.
Shannon J. Stallings, Apalachicola, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Giselle Denise Lylen, Assistant Attorney
General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
SMILEY, ELIJAH, Associate Judge
Appellant, Lester Hackley, challenges the reimposition of a mandatory life
sentence after the supreme court determined in State v. Hackley,
95 So. 3d 92, 93
(Fla. 2012), that his conviction for burglary of a conveyance with an assault was a
qualifying offense under the prison releasee reoffender statute, section 775.082(9),
Florida Statutes (2006). Appellant raises multiple issues, but we write only to
address his claim of sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
3.800(b) based on alleged racial discrimination by the prosecuting authorities in
seeking enhancement under the statute. Although constitutional claims may be
raised in a 3.800(b) motion, the rule preserves errors apparent “in sentence-related
orders, not any error in the sentencing process.” Jackson v. State,
983 So. 2d 562,
572 (Fla. 2008) (emphasis in original). Alleged discrimination by the prosecution
in seeking enhancement is not an error apparent on the face of the order itself; thus,
the 3.800(b) motion failed to preserve this issue for appellate review. Because
Appellant did not raise the alleged error during the resentencing hearing, this Court
is precluded from reaching the merits of this issue.
AFFIRMED.
WETHERELL and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
2