Frumenti v. State, 885 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Frumenti v. State, 885 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Dinkens v. State (fladistctapp, 2008-03-13)
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dinkens v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
See Gudinas v. State, 879 So.2d 616, 618-19 (Fla.2004); Roberts v. State, 923 So.2d 578, 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Tillman v. State, 900 So.2d 633, 633-34 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Frumenti v. State, 885 So.2d 924, 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); McBride v. State, 884 So.2d 476, 477-78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Saunders v. State, 863 So.2d 458, 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Graham v. State, 822 So.2d 576, 578-79 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Jones v. State, 791 So.2d 580, 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Saldo v. State, 789 So.2d 1150, 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Gordon v. State, 787 So.2d 892, 893-94 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
cited Cited "see" Donald Goins v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Frumenti v. State, 885 So. 2d 924, 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
cited Cited "see" Mullins v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Frumenti v. State, 885 So.2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
cited Cited "see" Mullins v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Frumenti v. State, 885 So.2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
cited Cited "see" Odum v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Frumenti v. State, 885 So.2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
cited Cited "see" Odum v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Frumenti v. State, 885 So.2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
cited Cited "see" Walker v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Frumenti v. State, 885 So.2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), review denied, 898 So.2d 937 (Fla.2005).
cited Cited "see" Walker v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Frumenti v. State, 885 So.2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), review denied, 898 So.2d 937 (Fla.2005).
cited Cited "see" Stewart v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Frumenti v. State, 885 So.2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), review denied, 898 So.2d 937 (Fla.2005).
cited Cited "see" Watts v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Frumenti v. State, 885 So.2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
cited Cited "see" Tuggerson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Frumenti v. State, 885 So.2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); and McBride v. State, 884 So.2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
cited Cited "see" Sage v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Polk v. State, 884 So.2d 498 , 29 Fla. L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gurley v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See McBride v. State, 884 So.2d 476, 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); see also Frumenti v. State, 885 So.2d 924, 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); United States v. Marseille, 377 F.3d 1249 , 1257 n. 14 (11th Cir.2004).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Humiston v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See, e.g., Jones v. State, 791 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).”); see also Frumenti v. State, 885 So.2d 924, 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (holding a sentence under section 775.084, Florida Statutes, the Habitual Felony Offender statute, is not illegal because “Blakely merely applied Apprendi v. New Jersey ”); McBride v. State, 884 So.2d 476, 478 (Fla, 4th DCA 2004) (holding Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), “does not entitle a defendant to have a jury determine whether he has the requisite predicate convictions for a habitual felony offender sente…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Frederick FRUMENTI, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
5D04-3012.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Oct 8, 2004.
885 So. 2d 924
Thompson.
Cited by 20 opinions  |  Published

Frederick Frumenti, Daytona Beach, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

THOMPSON, J.

Frederick Frumenti appeals an order summarily denying his Rule 3.800(a) motion.[1] We affirm.

Frumenti was sentenced for armed burglary of a dwelling,[2] possession of a firearm by a convicted felon,[3] grand theft of a[*925] firearm,[4] and aggravated assault with a firearm.[5] He was also designated a habitual felony offender pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes. Frumenti claims in his motion that his habitual offender sentences are illegal under Blakely v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). In Blakely, the Supreme Court held that factors which enhanced a defendant's sentence from the presumptive sentencing guidelines must be decided by a jury. Id. at 2536. We conclude that Frumenti is not entitled to relief on this claim because Blakely merely applied Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The Court ruled in Apprendi that: "Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (emphasis supplied). Contrary to Frumenti's position, habitual offender sentences are based solely on prior convictions. See § 775.084, Fla. Stat. Further, as this court stated in Wright v. State, 780 So.2d 216, 217 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001):

Nothing in Apprendi overrules the Florida Supreme Court's holding in Eutsey v. State, 383 So.2d 219 (Fla.1980) that the determination that a defendant could be sentenced as an habitual felony offender was independent of the question of guilt in the underlying substantive offense and did not require the full panoply of rights afforded a defendant in the trial of the offense.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur.

1 Frumenti filed a notice of supplemental authority in the trial court, which the court treated as a Rule 3.800(a) motion since Frumenti had nothing pending in the trial court at the time.
2 § 810.02(1), Fla. Stat.
3 § 790.23(3), Fla. Stat.
4 § 812.014(2)(c)3, Fla. Stat.
5 § 784.021(1)(a), Fla. Stat.