TOMIKA HENRY, 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.
The court held that a claim attacking convictions, not sentences, cannot be raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) if it cannot be determined from the face of the record.
Appellant sought to correct an illegal sentence, claiming convictions for grand theft and robbery violated double jeopardy as they arose from the same…
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 Face Of The Record cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. Appellant claimed that her convictions for grand theft and robbery violated double jeopardy because they were committed during the same criminal episode, involved the same victims, and concerned the same jewelry. We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that this claim cannot be raised in a 3.800(a) motion because the claim attacks the convictions, not the sentences, and because the claim cannot be determined from the face of the record. See Safrany v. State, 895 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Smith v. State, 886 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
We note that the situation would be different if the double jeopardy challenge was directed at the sentences and if the claim could be determined from the face of the record. See Hopping v. State, 708 So. 2d 263 (Fla.1998) (holding that a double jeopardy claim that a sentence has been unconstitutionally enhanced may be raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion when the double jeopardy violation can be determined from the face of the record). See also Wheeler v. State, 880 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (involving a claim of violation of double jeopardy rights in rescinded jail credit).
The motion could not have been treated as a motion for postconviction relief under rule 3.850 because the time limit for raising such a claim expired before the motion was filed. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to correct illegal sentence.
POLEN, GROSS and MAY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coughlin v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…he postconviction court denied this claim because it attacks Coughlin’s convictions, rather than his sentences, and is therefore not cognizable under rule 3.800(a). See, e.g., Plowman v. State, 586 So. 2d 454, 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Henry v. State, 920 So. 2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Salazar v. State, 675 So. 2d 654, 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State v. Spella, 567 So. 2d 1051, 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Ferenc v. State, 563 So. 2d 707, 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Because this rule is well established in Flori…
-
Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…conviction and, by default, the sentence, while [R]ule 3.800(a) is limited to claims that a sentence itself is illegal, without regard to the underlying conviction.”). The authorities for this principle of law are legion. See, e.g., Henry v. State, 920 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Walker v. State, 940 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Salazar v. State, 675 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Plowman v. State, 586 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); State v. Spella, 567 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Ferenc v. State…
-
Mauldin v. State, 9 So. 3d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…double jeopardy. A Rule 3.800(a) motion cannot be used to set aside the convictions, but Mauldin could raise a double jeopardy challenge to his sentences if the illegality of the sentence is apparent from the face of the record. See Henry v. State, 920 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). See also Coughlin v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Smith v. State, 886 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The factual basis for Mauldin’s plea is not disputed and it is clear from the face of the record. The only cogn…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Darin S. Hopping v. State, 708 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 1998)
- Wheeler v. State, 880 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Gary v. State, 895 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Hinton v. Hinton, 886 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Smith v. State, 886 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)