AMADORE ROCHE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Face Of The Record cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Roche appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion. We affirm.
Roche claims his scoresheet was improperly calculated and that scoring of two convictions violated his double jeopardy rights. These are not viable claims sufficient to establish an “illegal sentence” pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). These kinds of claims cannot be determined from the face of the record because they will require an evidentiary hearing to resolve, the issues raised. Thus, the trial court properly denied the rule 3.800(a) motion in this case. See Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995); State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1995); Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), appeal dismissed, 678 So. 2d 1287 (Fla.1996).
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON, C.J., and GOSHORN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gaynor v. State, 831 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…hat a grand theft auto offense was improperly included on his sentencing guideline scoresheet. This factual issue cannot be determined from the face of the record, and therefore cannot be considered in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding. See Roche v. State, 681 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (holding that defendant’s claim that scoresheet was not properly calculated involved issues which could not be determined from the face of the record and would require evidentiary hearing, so trial court correctly denied 3.800(a)…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995)
- State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995)
- Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)