71 So. 3d 776
Fla.2011Background
- Mapp pleaded to multiple felonies and a misdemeanor in two Polk County cases; he received no notice the State would seek habitual offender status until sentencing.
- The circuit court sentenced Mapp as an HFO in both cases and ordered restitution after victims testified about losses.
- Mapp's counsel moved under Rule 3.800(b) alleging sentencing errors and insufficient restitution evidence; the court struck the HFO designation and vacated restitution outside the 60-day window.
- The Second District held the sentencing errors were not preserved for appeal because they were errors in the sentencing process, not in the sentencing order, and reinstated the HFO terms and restitution.
- The Florida Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether the HFO designation could be corrected under 3.800(b) and to address restitution issues.
- The Court ultimately quashed the Second District’s ruling on the HFO issue, reinstating the trial court’s removal of the HFO designation, and approved the restitution portion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HFO designation error is cognizable under 3.800(b). | Mapp: error is cognizable under 3.800(b). | State: error is not preserved as a sentencing-process issue under 3.800(b). | Cognizable; reversed to reinstate removal of HFO. |
| Whether improper HFO sentencing requires contemporaneous objection under Jackson/Maddox. | Mapp relied on Jackson/Maddox to permit correction under 3.800(b). | Second District properly treated as non-preserved sentencing-process error. | Quashed; preserved under 3.800(b) for HFO issue. |
| Whether restitution order issues are cognizable under 3.800(b). | Potential challenge to restitution based on sufficiency/credibility of evidence. | Not a sentencing-order error; not cognizable under 3.800(b). | Not cognizable; affirmed restitution order. |
| Whether this Court has jurisdiction to review the Second District decision. | Conflict argument notwithstanding the jurisdictional grant. | No express/direct conflict; case should be discharged. | No jurisdiction; case discharged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562 (Fla. 2008) (clarifies rule 3.800(b) coverage of errors in the sentencing process vs. orders)
- Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla. 2000) (fundamental error for habitual offender sentencing; corrections on direct appeal)
- Ashley v. State, 614 So.2d 486 (Fla. 1993) (requires notice and awareness for HFO after guilty or no contest plea)
- Brannon v. State, 850 So.2d 452 (Fla. 2003) (amended rule 3.800(b) timing considerations)