Summary
affirming denial of motion challenging habitual offender designation
Summary of this case from Ponton v. WillisOpinion
No. 3D09-380.
August 5, 2009.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge.
Gregory Ponton, in proper person.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before COPE, LAGOA, and SALTER, JJ.
Prior reports: 744 So.2d 1009; 990 So.2d 609.
This is an appeal of an order denying, in part, a motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). On point one, we affirm as to the consecutive sentences as a habitual violent felony offender (HVFO) on counts fifteen and sixteen on authority of Spratling v. State, 672 So.2d 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
In point three, the defendant relies on Rutherford v. State, 820 So.2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). As to that case, we have previously explained that the Second District apparently has an internal conflict of decisions. There is no sequential conviction requirement for an adjudication as an HVFO. Williams v. State, 898 So.2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). We affirm on point three under authority of Williams. We affirm as to the remaining claims without comment.
Affirmed.