From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Austin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
May 12, 2004
874 So. 2d 47 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

Opinion

Case No. 4D04-1193.

Opinion filed May 12, 2004. Rehearing Denied June 17, 2004.

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800(a) motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Richard I. Wennet, Judge, L.T. Case No. 91-6388 CFB02.

Jeffrey Austin, Okeechobee, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.


The order denying Defendant's rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence is affirmed, but for reasons other than those expressed in the order on appeal.

The trial court found that the instant motion was successive to Defendant's prior rule 3.800(a) motions; however, nothing in the summary record established that was so. Nevertheless, the denial is affirmed because the motion essentially challenged the validity of factors the trial court used to depart upward on resentencing, and its alleged refusal to consider factors in mitigation. If preserved, these challenges could have been raised in a direct appeal from the resentencing, but they are not claims of illegal sentence cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion.See Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 2001); Blakley v. State, 746 So.2d 1182, 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

STEVENSON, HAZOURI and MAY, JJ., concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL DISPOSITION OF ANY TIMELY FILED MOTION FOR REHEARING.


Summaries of

Austin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
May 12, 2004
874 So. 2d 47 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)
Case details for

Austin v. State

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY AUSTIN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: May 12, 2004

Citations

874 So. 2d 47 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

Citing Cases

Wright v. State

Challenges to the validity of the factors the trial court used to depart upward in sentencing, if preserved,…

Whitehead v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

Therefore, such claims are not cognizable in postconviction proceedings. See Austin v. State, 874 So. 2d 47,…