WAADEW AYSISAYH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2000-01-26
No. 2D99-3651
FULMER, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
752 So. 2d 667 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2000) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion to correct an illegal sentence because the attached documents did not conclusively refute the defendant's claim that his habitual offender sentence was illegal.


Facts & Procedural History

Waadew Aysisayh, convicted of sexual battery and sentenced as a habitual offender, moved to correct his sentence, alleging the habitual offender statu…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Waadew Aysisayh appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Ay-sisayh was convicted of sexual battery and sentenced as a habitual offender on May 8, 1980. Aysisayh alleges that he was convicted of life felony sexual battery1 and that therefore the imposition of a habitual offender sentence was illegal. The habitual offender statute in effect at the time Aysisayh’s offenses were committed did not apply to life felonies. See section 775.084, Fla. Stat. (1979); Lamont v. State, 610 So. 2d 435 (Fla.1992) (holding that a similarly worded statute did not apply to life felonies). If Aysisayh’s claim is correct, he is entitled to relief. See Nathan v. State, 689 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

Because the documents attached by the trial court do not refute this claim, we reverse and remand. On remand, the trial court may again summarily deny the claim if record attachments conclusively show that Aysisayh was convicted of a lesser degree of sexual battery. If Aysisayh’s claim proves true, the trial court must remove the habitual offender designation, but need not resentence him because his thirty-year sentence was the minimum then allowed for a life felony. See, e.g., Miller v. State, 696 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)(holding that where an improperly imposed habitual sentence was within the guidelines, the court on remand need only remove the habitual offender designation and need not resentence defendant).

The trial court’s order is affirmed as to Aysisayh’s other claims.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.

FULMER, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., Concur. . Depending on the circumstances, Aysisayh’s conviction for sexual battery could have been for a life" felony, a first-degree felony, or a second-degree felony. See section 794.011, Fla. Stat. (1979).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Barnard v. State, 782 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
    …y based on the use of a weapon. See, e.g., Nathan v. State, 689 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that under 1991 version of habitual offender statute, defendant could not receive habitual offender sentence for life felony); Aysisayh v. State, 752 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reversing summary denial of 3.800(a) relief where defendant claimed improper habitual offender sentence for life felony). Accordingly, we reverse. On remand, the trial court may again deny relief if it attaches the record documen…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw