ALGERNON E. WILSON, 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.
A claim that a consecutive habitual offender sentence is illegal because the offenses arose from a single criminal episode is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion.
Wilson pleaded guilty to multiple felonies and was sentenced as a habitual felony offender. He claims his consecutive sentence for one count is illega…
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 Single Criminal Episode Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Algernon E. Wilson appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). One of Wilson’s claims has merit, and on this one issue we reverse. The order of the trial court is affirmed in all other respects.
In 1992, Wilson pleaded guilty to burglary of a structure (count I), grand theft (count II), possession of burglary tools (count III), and two counts of attempted burglary of a structure (counts IV and V). Wilson was sentenced as a habitual felony offender to ten years’ imprisonment for each count. All sentences were concurrent except the sentence for count II. The sentence for count II was consecutive to the sentence for count I. Wilson did not appeal. Wilson now claims that his consecutive habitual offender sentence for count II is illegal pursuant to Male v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993). Wilson alleges that it is apparent from the face of the record that his offenses arose from a single criminal episode. The trial court denied his claim finding that it was not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. We reverse.
Wilson has made a facially sufficient claim for relief that is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding. See Adams v. State, 755 So. 2d 678, 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (finding that a Hale claim which alleges that it may be determined without resort to extra-record facts is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion). We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings on this claim.
Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.
BLUE, C.J., and DAVIS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 803 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…ors were present on the face of the record, we reversed the order summarily denying relief and remanded with instructions to the trial court to determine whether the motion could be resolved on the record. Atwood, 765 So. 2d at 243; Wilson v. State, 802 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). So long as a rule 3.800(a) motion satisfies the allegation requirements of the rule, the reasoning in Atwood should apply as well to a transcript of the trial if it is available. Fla. R.App. P. 9.200(a)(1) (“Except as otherwise d…
-
Smith v. State, 824 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…ostconviction proceedings where he did not preserve the issue for direct appeal). Appellant alleged that his claim could be determined from the face of the record, and he, therefore, presented a cognizable rule 3.800(a) claim. See Wilson v. State, 802 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Should the trial court determine that Smith’s claim cannot be resolved without resort to extra-record facts, Sm…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Adams v. State, 755 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)