CLELLAN TYSON, 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.
Clellan Tyson appealed the denial of his motion to correct his sentencing guidelines scoresheet under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), claiming seven prior convictions had been dismissed or dropped. The court affirmed the denial on the grounds that Tyson's motion was facially insufficient under the rule's requirements.
Tyson's motion was facially insufficient because it did not affirmatively allege that the court records in the instant proceeding demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief, as required by Rule 3.800(a). While the trial court reached the correct result by denying the motion, it did so for the wrong reason by relying on extraneous exhibits not part of the sentencing record.
[1] A motion to correct a sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) must affirmatively allege that court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to…
[2] The merit of a motion to correct a sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) can only be determined by reference to the record of the proceedings in whic…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The merit of a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct a sentence can, however, be determined only by reference to the record of the proceedings in which the challenged sentence was imposed.”
Establishes the standard that Rule 3.800(a) motions must be evaluated solely based on the sentencing record, not extraneous exhibits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTyson was sentenced using a sentencing guidelines scoresheet that included seven prior convictions. Tyson moved to correct the sentence, alleging thes…
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 Evidentiary Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
[*429] PER CURIAM.
Clellan Tyson appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm because Tyson’s motion was facially insufficient.
In his motion, Tyson alleged that his sentencing guidelines scoresheet included seven prior convictions which had been “either dismissed or dropped” and that a corrected scoresheet would dictate a lower sentence. The State responded to the motion and submitted, as exhibits to its response, copies of judgments and sentences entered in some of the challenged cases to support the points scored for prior record. The exhibits were not a part of the trial court record in the proceeding in which the challenged sentence was imposed. The trial court relied upon the exhibits submitted by the State as the basis for denying Tyson’s motion on its merits. The merit of a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct a sentence can, however, be determined only by reference to the record of the proceedings in which the challenged sentence was imposed. It was thus inappropriate for the trial court to consider the extraneous records submitted by the State.
The trial court’s denial of Tyson’s motion was nonetheless correct-albeit not for the reasons articulated by the trial court. Tyson’s motion was facially insufficient because it did not “affirmatively allege!] that the court records [in the instant proceeding] demonstrate on their face an entitlement to th[e] relief’ sought. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a). The trial court should have denied the motion on the basis of that facial insufficiency.
Ordinarily, the type of error raised by Tyson will not be apparent on the face of the record and therefore will not be a basis for relief under rule 3.800(a). See Lomont v. State, 506 So. 2d 1141, 1141-42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (holding that trial court properly denied defendant’s motion asserting claim that prior felonies of which he was not convicted were improperly included in guidelines scoresheet computation because “the error complained of would require an evidentiary determination”); cf. McCullough v. State, 777 So. 2d 1091, 1091 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that rule 3.800(a) motion alleging improperly calculated scoresheet was cognizable because motion “alleged that the error [could] be determined from a review of [the] presentence investigation report contained in the court record”).
Because we conclude that Tyson’s motion was facially insufficient and that he is therefore not entitled to relief in this instance, we affirm the denial of his motion. Affirmed.
FULMER, DAVIS, and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCLAIN v. State, 157 So. 3d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…, Appellant’s motion was facially insufficient because it failed to affirmatively allege that the court records of the proceedings in which the challenged sentence was imposed demonstrate on their face'' an entitlement to relief. See Tyson v. State, 852 So. 2d 428, 429 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that Rule 3.800(a) motion “was facially insufficient because it did not ‘affirmatively allege[] that the court records [in the instant proceeding] demonstrate on their face an entitlement to th[e] relief sought.”) (q…
-
Vetrony Livingston v. State, 944 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…a. Stat. (2001). However, Livingston’s motion is facially insuffi- [*1255] dent because it did not affirmatively allege that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a); see also Tyson v. State, 852 So. 2d 428, 429 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). It appears that the postconviction court relied on exhibits prepared by the Department of Corrections after Livingston was sentenced as a basis for summarily denying the motion on its merits. It is unclear whether the exhi…
-
Harper v. State, 905 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…47 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Nevertheless, Harper’s rule 3.800 motion is facially insufficient because he did not affirmatively allege that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a); Tyson v. State, 852 So. 2d 428, 429 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Therefore, we reverse the order denying the rule 3.800 motion and remand for entry of an order of dismissal, which shall be without prejudice to any right Harper may have to file a facially sufficient motion pursuant to ru…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lomont v. State, 506 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- McCULLOUGH v. State, 777 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)