MORALES VS. 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., 2004 MELTIN A. DAVIS, ** ** Appellant, vs. ** CASE NO. 3D04-1734 ** THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ** Appellee. LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 03-14745 ** Opinion filed September 9, 2004. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b) (2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Julio E. Jimenez, Judge. Meltin A. Davis, in proper person. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, for appellee. Before COPE. GERSTEN and GREEN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Meltin A. Davis appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. Defendant-appellant Davis contends that he does not qualify as a habitual violent felony offender ( HVFO ) because his offense at conviction was not one of the offenses enumerated in the misinterprets the statute. HVFO statute. The defendant An offender qualifies as an HVFO if he has previously been convicted of a felony or an attempt or conspiracy to commit a felony enumerated in the statute. § 775.084(1)(b)1., current offense Fla. for Stat. which an (2003) (emphasis offender is added). being The habitualized under the HVFO statute need not be an enumerated offense. See id. § 775.084(1)(b); Tillman v. State, 609 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 1992). Affirmed. 2

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.