HEATH V. STATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM A.D., 2005 WINSTON K. HEATH, ** Appellant, vs. ** ** THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. CASE NO. 3D05-1178 ** ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 02-22828 ** Opinion filed October 19, 2005. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b) (2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Sarah I. Zabel, Judge. Winston K. Heath, in proper person. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Hazel, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. and Robin F. Before COPE, C.J., and FLETCHER and CORTIÃ AS, JJ. COPE, C.J. Winston K. Heath appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) in which he contends that he does not qualify as a habitual violent felony offender ( HVFO ). We affirm. Defendant-appellant Heath entered into a plea agreement for a forty-eight-month sentence as an HVFO on the charge unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.1 of For habitualization purposes, the State relied on the defendant s prior conviction for aggravated battery on a pregnant person, which was Miami-Dade County circuit court case number 00-37873 ( the 2000 The offense qualifying case ). for offense an of HVFO aggravated battery is a § adjudication. See the battery 775.084(1)(b)1.n., Fla. Stat. (2002). The defendant contends that aggravated conviction may not be counted as a predicate offense because he was placed on probation for that offense. We disagree. the defendant entered his guilty plea in the 2000 case. adjudicated guilty and placed on probation. In 2001 He was Under the Florida Supreme Court s decision in State v. Richardson, 30 Fla. L. Weekly S616 (Fla. Sept. 8, 2005), the placing of the defendant on probation or community control qualifies as a sentence for purposes of the sequential conviction rule. [A] sentence, as referred the to probation. in section 775.084, sanction of Id. at S617 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 1 includes The crime date was August 1, 2002. 2 Affirmed.2 The defendant incorrectly maintains that the two separate cases as predicate offenses for While both cases were placed before the trial qualifying offense for imposition of an HVFO the 2000 case. 2 3 State relied on habitualization. court, the only adjudication was
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
