ERICK MURRAY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Appellant's motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) was properly stated because he raised a facially sufficient Heggs claim regarding sentencing under unconstitutional 1995 guidelines when his offenses fell within the applicable window, requiring reversal and remand for resentencing determination.
A defendant states a facially sufficient claim for relief under Rule 3.800(a) when he challenges his sentence as illegal based on Heggs and demonstrates his offenses occurred within the applicable window.
[1] A defendant states a facially sufficient claim for relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) when challenging a sentence as illegal based on Heggs by alleg…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMurray was sentenced under the 1995 sentencing guidelines for offenses committed between October 1, 1996, and May 24, 1997. He contended the 1995 guid…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Heggs Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Errick Murray appeals the dismissal of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse.
Murray challenges the legality of his sentence based on the fact that he was sentenced under the 1995 sentencing guidelines, which he contends are unconstitutional based on our decision in Heggs v. State, 718 So. 2d 263, 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). He .asserts that the offenses for which he was sentenced occurred between October 1, 1996, and May 24, 1997, within the window for raising a Heggs claim. He further asserts that the maximum sentence he could have received under the 1994 guidelines is much less than the actual sentence he received under the 1995 guidelines.
Murray has stated a facially sufficient claim for relief. See Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). We accordingly reverse and remand for the trial court to determine whether Murray in fact committed his offenses within the Heggs window and, if so, whether his sentence could not have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines without a departure. If the answers to both of these questions are affirmative, then Murray must be resentenced in accordance with the valid guidelines in existence at the time he committed his offenses. If the court enters an order declaring resentencing unnecessary, it should attach all documents necessary to reach that conclusion. See Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Reversed and remanded.
BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Daniels v. State, 771 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…se Daniels did not present a facially sufficient claim for relief. Daniels did properly allege that the offenses for which he was sentenced occurred between October 1, 1995, and May, 24, 1997, which is within the Heggs window. See Murray v. State, 768 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). However, he failed to allege that his sentence constituted a departure sentence under the 1994 sentencing guidelines. See Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620, 627 (Fla.2000) (if defendant’s sentence under 1995 guidelines could have be…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Heggs v. State, 718 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)