STEVON L. GUILFORD, 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 challenging the sentencing process is not cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
Stevon L. Guilford appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing the trial court improperly considered his failure…
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 Sentencing Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
Stevon L. Guilford appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), in which he raised one claim of illegality in the sentencing process. We affirm.
Guilford claimed that in sentencing him to thirty years (the statutory maximum), the trial court erroneously took into account his failure to admit guilt and accept responsibility. The postconviction court denied this claim on the basis that it amounted to a challenge of the sentencing process, which cannot be raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Hankins v. State, 42 So.3d 871, 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).
Although Guilford maintains that his claim could be resolved from the face of the record in accordance with rule 3.800(a), “[a]ny error in the court’s consideration of certain factors in imposing sentence is an error in the sentencing process.” Hannum v. State, 13 So.3d 132, 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). And as the postconviction court correctly concluded, “sentencing procedures are generally not a subject for review under rule 3.800(a).” Hankins, 42 So.3d at 872. Lastly, Guilford’s sentence — thirty years’ imprisonment on the first-degree felony of aggravated child abuse — is not illegal, and he does not present another claim that is cognizable under rule 3.800(a). See § 827.03(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). Therefore, the postconviction court correctly denied Guilford’s rule 3.800(a) motion.
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND and LaROSE, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Collier v. State, 148 So. 3d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…the trial court in fashioning the appropriate sentence.”). However, such a claim asserts error in the sentencing process, as opposed to the legality of the sentence itself, and thus, cannot be raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Guilford v. State, 88 So. 3d 998, 999 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (holding claim that trial court erroneously took into account defendant’s failure to admit guilt and accept responsibility not cognizable in rule 3.800(a) motion). Accordingly, Collier’s motion was properly denied. AFFIRMED…
-
Rashane D. Barber v. State, 135 So. 3d 1125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Guilford v. State, 88 So. 3d 998 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Carpenter v. State, 884 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Boyd v. State, 880 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Williams v. State, 907 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Pruitt v. State, 801 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). CRENSHAW, BLA…
-
Chestel R. Thorson v. State, 197 So. 3d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045 (Fla.2011); Moore v. State, 882 So. 2d 977 (Fla.2004); Lee v. State, 679 So. 2d 1158 (Fla.1996); McDonald v. State, 133 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Guilford v. State, 88 So. 3d 998 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Coughlin v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (en banc); Carpenter v. State, 884 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Shortridge v. State, 884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Bo…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hannum v. State, 13 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Boyd v. State, 13 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Hankins v. State, 42 So. 3d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)