Case Name: Lee Albert MILNER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-01-12
Citations: 705 So. 2d 950
Docket Number: No. 97-3700
Parties: Lee Albert MILNER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: KAHN, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 705
Pages: 950–950

Head Matter:
Lee Albert MILNER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 97-3700.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Jan. 12, 1998.
Lee Albert Milner, Jr., Appellant, pro se.
Robert Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the denial of his 3.800(a) motion, alleging his offense was committed during the window period when the habitual offender statute was unconstitutional, and therefore the enhancement rendered his sentence illegal by causing it to exceed the non-habitual statutory maximum for his offense. He failed to state whether he was actually affected by the unconstitutional amendments. See State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1 (Fla.1993). Nevertheless, the issue of whether appellant qualified for habitual felony offender classification and sentencing requires a factual determination and is therefore an inappropriate issue for consideration under Rule 3.800(a). See Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193 (Fla.1995); Pace v. State, 662 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
AFFIRMED.
KAHN, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.