Case Name: Qavontae Machell LANG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2018-06-04
Citations: 243 So. 3d 534
Docket Number: No. 1D16–2930
Parties: Qavontae Machell LANG, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 243
Pages: 534–535

Head Matter:
Qavontae Machell LANG, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D16-2930
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
June 4, 2018
Rocco J. Carbone, III, St. Augustine, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Appellant, Qavontae MacHell Lang, contends in part that we should reverse his convictions based on ineffective assistance of counsel that is apparent on the face of the record. Except in rare cases, allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel must be raised in a postconviction proceeding brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, not on direct appeal. See Barnett v. State , 181 So.3d 534, 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). We reject Appellant's argument that this case meets that rare standard. While Appellant also raises what he characterizes as a double jeopardy argument, he challenges his two fifteen-year sentences, not his convictions. See State v. Williams , 854 So.2d 215, 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (noting that a double jeopardy claim "constitutes, in reality, a challenge to [the appellee's] convictions rather [than] his sentence"). Because Appellant did not preserve this argument, we cannot address it. See Sims v. State , 998 So.2d 494, 504 (Fla. 2008) ("In Florida, a specific, contemporaneous objection is necessary to preserve a sentencing error."). Our disposition does not preclude Appellant from challenging his sentences in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). See Eason v. State , 932 So.2d 465, 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (noting that the appellant, who completed youthful offender boot camp, argued in his rule 3.800(a) motion that the trial court erred in sentencing him following his violation of probation). Finally, we have considered Appellant's remaining arguments, which we find to be meritless.
AFFIRMED .
LEWIS , KELSEY , and WINSOR , JJ., concur.