From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nunez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Oct 26, 2005
912 So. 2d 693 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

Summary

holding unpreserved sentencing error, even if fundamental error, must be preserved through a timely filed Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) motion

Summary of this case from Brown v. State

Opinion

No. 2D04-1127.

October 26, 2005.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; J. Rogers Padgett, Judge.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Bruce P. Taylor, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ronald Napolitano, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.


In this appeal from convictions for trafficking in amphetamine, trafficking in illegal drugs, and possession of a controlled substance, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), suggesting the possibility of legal error in the trial court's denial of Nunez's motion for a judgment of acquittal. We have carefully reviewed the record and find no error in the issue suggested by counsel. However, we do detect error in the sentence imposed.

Although Nunez's sentence was a lawful sentence imposed within the Criminal Punishment Code, the written sentencing order reflects that the trial court designated Nunez's sentences for trafficking in amphetamine and trafficking in illegal drugs as habitual felony offender sentences. The State never sought habitual felony offender sentences for these offenses, the trial court did not include the designations in its oral pronouncement, and the designations appear to be scrivener's errors. The State correctly concedes that Nunez's written judgment erroneously reflects habitual felony offender sentences for the two trafficking offenses. However, Nunez did not preserve this issue for appellate review by filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). See Brannon v. State, 850 So.2d 452 (Fla. 2003). Therefore, we may not address this sentencing error on direct appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Nunez's judgments and sentences without prejudice to any right Nunez may have to file an appropriate postconviction motion addressing the erroneous designations.

Affirmed.

STRINGER and CANADY, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Nunez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Oct 26, 2005
912 So. 2d 693 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

holding unpreserved sentencing error, even if fundamental error, must be preserved through a timely filed Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) motion

Summary of this case from Brown v. State
Case details for

Nunez v. State

Case Details

Full title:John Yancy NUNEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Oct 26, 2005

Citations

912 So. 2d 693 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

Citing Cases

Powell v. State

At times, though, some of the appellate courts have expressed concerns that such an outcome leaves an…

Nunez v. State

Based upon the events surrounding this stop and seizure, Mr. Nunez was found guilty by a jury of trafficking…