TYRONE POWELL
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part a lower court's denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court found that the trial court failed to provide sufficient record evidence to refute the appellant's claim regarding consecutive mandatory minimum sentences.
The appellate court held that the trial court did not conclusively refute the appellant's claim with the provided record. Therefore, the denial of the motion on this ground was erroneous.
[1] When a defendant raises a facially sufficient claim under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) that is cognizable, the trial court must attach portions of the reco…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“consecutive sentencing of mandatory minimum imprisonment terms for multiple firearm offenses is impermissible if the offenses arose from the same criminal episode and a firearm was merely possessed but not discharged”
This quote establishes the legal principle the appellant relied on for his claim.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant argued his sentence was illegal because the trial court imposed consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for crimes arising 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 Same Criminal Episode cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant makes two arguments challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the first claim of a scoresheet error without comment. On the second claim, however, we reverse and remand for the trial court to either impose Appellant’s mandatory minimum sentences concurrently, or to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting Appellant’s entitlement to relief.
Appellant’s motion claimed that his sentence was illegal because the trial court imposed consecutive mandatory minimum sentences when his crimes arose from the same criminal episode and did not involve the discharge of a firearm. See Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989, 993 (Fla. 2016) (holding that “consecutive sentencing of mandatory minimum imprisonment terms for multiple firearm offenses is impermissible if the offenses arose from the same criminal episode and a firearm was merely possessed but not discharged”). The trial court ruled that Appellant’s argument was refuted by the record. But we cannot determine from the record portions attached that Appellant’s argument is conclusively refuted. The State’s response relies on transcripts provided in the appendix to its own brief in support of affirming Appellant’s sentence. But these transcripts are not included in the record on appeal. See, e.g., Brown v. State, 132 So. 3d 363, 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“[W]here a defendant has stated a facially sufficient claim that is cognizable pursuant to rule 3.800(a), a trial court is required to attach records to an order of denial which conclusively refute his entitlement to relief.”). We thus reverse and remand for the trial court to either grant relief on Appellant’s claim, or to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting Appellant’s entitlement to relief.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED in part with directions.
OSTERHAUS, KELSEY, and JAY, JJ., concur. _____________________________