Colon v. State, 869 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Colon v. State, 869 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“ur affirmance is without prejudice to appellant's filing an appropriate post-conviction motion raising any such unpreserved sentencing issues.”
21 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Norton v. State (fladistctapp, 2015-03-31)
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Norton v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
ur affirmance is without prejudice to appellant's filing an appropriate post-conviction motion raising any such unpreserved sentencing issues.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Equan Tario Forehand v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
See A.L.B. v. State, 23 So.3d 190, 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Colon v. State, 869 So.2d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tyrone K. Powell v. State of Florida (2×)
Fla. · 2015 · confidence medium
See 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Colon v. State, 869 So. 2d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Washington v. State, 814 So. 2d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). -5- A.L.B., 23 So. 3d at 191-92 ; A.F.E., 853 So. 2d at 1095 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ramos v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
See A.L.B., 23 So.3d at 192 (“Today’s affirmance is without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek relief collaterally[.]”); Colon v. State, 869 So.2d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) John A. Ramos v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
See A.L.B., 23 So. 3d at 192 (“Today’s affirmance is without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek relief collaterally[.]”); Colon v. State, 869 So. 2d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) A.L.B. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
See also Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 , 102, 110 (Fla.2000) (holding “improper habitualization” to be fundamental error, although not susceptible to correction on direct appeal after the “window period [following] the enactment of the Criminal Appeal Reform Act” had closed); Colon v. State, 869 So.2d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (affirming convictions and sentences because “unpre-served sentencing error cannot be corrected in an Anders case”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ALB v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
See also Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 , 102, 110 (Fla.2000) (holding "improper habitualization" to be fundamental error, although not susceptible to correction on direct appeal after the "window period [following] the enactment of the Criminal Appeal Reform Act" had closed); Colon v. State, 869 So.2d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (affirming convictions and sentences because "unpreserved sentencing error cannot be corrected in an Anders case").
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Starkes v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
See also Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 , 102, 110 (Fla.2000) (holding “improper habitualization” to be fundamental error, although not susceptible to correction on direct appeal after the “window period [following] the enactment of the Criminal Appeal Reform Act” had closed); Colon v. State, 869 So.2d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (affirming convictions and sentences because “unpre-served sentencing error cannot be corrected in an Anders case”).
discussed Cited "see" Bernal v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Colon v. State, 869 So.2d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (affirming convictions and sentences because "unpreserved sentencing error cannot be corrected in an Anders [v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967)] case").
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Louis COLON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
4D03-3833.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Apr 21, 2004.
869 So. 2d 1290
Per Curiam.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 70%
Citer courts: District Court of Appeal of Fl… (1)

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders[1] appeal, we affirm the convictions and sentences.

Our review of the record indicates a possible sentencing error, in that the trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence did not include the imposition of a ten-year mandatory minimum term as a habitual violent felony offender, which appears in the written sentences. The mandatory minimum is discretionary, not mandatory, see State v. Hudson, 698 So.2d 831 (Fla. 1997) (not cited), and thus must be orally pronounced. See Hill v. State, 652 So.2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Green v. State, 615 So.2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

However, the issue was not preserved for appeal, and unpreserved sentencing error cannot be corrected in an Anders case. See Washington v. State, 814 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), rev. dismissed, 831 So.2d 675 (Fla.2002); A.F.E. v. State, 853 So.2d 1091, 1094-95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Accordingly, our affirmance is without prejudice to appellant's filing an appropriate post-conviction motion raising any such unpreserved sentencing issues.

FARMER, C.J., POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).