Case Name: Lester HACKLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2015-12-08
Citations: 189 So. 3d 154
Docket Number: No. 1D12-5934
Parties: Lester HACKLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: WETHERELL and RAY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 189
Pages: 154–155

Head Matter:
Lester HACKLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D12-5934.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Dec. 8, 2015.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 19, 2016.
. Shannon J. Stallings, Apalachicola, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Giselle Denise Lylen, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
SMILEY, ELIJAH, Associate Judge.
.Appellant, Lester Hackley, challenges the reimposition of a mandatory life sentence after the supreme court determined in State v. Hackley, 95 So.3d 92, 93 (Fla.2012), that his conviction for burglary of a conveyance with an assault was a qualifying offense under the prison releasee reof-fender statute, section 775.082(9), Florida Statutes (2006). Appellant raises multiple issues, but we write only to address his claim of sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) based on alleged racial discrimination by the prosecuting authorities in seeking enhancement under the statute. Although constitutional claims may be raised in a 3.800(b) motion, the rule preserves errors apparent "in sentence-relatéd orders, not any error in the sentencing process." Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562, 572 (Fla.2008) (emphasis in original). Alleged discrimination by the prosecution in seeking enhancement is not an error apparent on the face of the order itself; thus, the 3.800(b) motion failed to preserve this issue for appellate review. Because Appellant did not raise the alleged error, during the resentencing hearing, this Court is precluded from reaching the merits of this issue.
AFFIRMED.
WETHERELL and RAY, JJ., concur.