DESMOND DAVIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2007-08-08
No. 4D07-1834
GUNTHER, STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.
963 So. 2d 295 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2007)

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 defendant's claim regarding a predicate offense for habitual offender sentencing was cognizable and required further review because the record did not refute the claim.


Facts & Procedural History

The defendant appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that one of the predicate offenses used for habitual offender …

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.

Desmond Davis appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand with respect to one of his claims.

Davis alleges that one of the predicate offenses used to qualify him for habitual offender sentencing did not exist as a matter of law, or that it was a juvenile adjudication that did not qualify for such purpose. At issue is 95-7170, associated with attempted burglary of a dwelling. This appears to be the sole predicate offense that did not relate to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance. Woods v. State, 807 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

Davis’s claim is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion if the error can be determined from the record. See Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246 (Fla.2001). Our record does not contain documents to refute this legally sufficient claim: Sheffield v. State, 903 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further review of Davis’s claim that 95-7170 was not a qualifying predicate offense.

GUNTHER, STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw