ROY JUNIOR YATES, 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.
Appellant Yates challenged the legality of his sentence through post-conviction motions under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800 and 3.850. The trial court denied the motion as untimely under Rule 3.850 and because similar grounds were previously decided. The appellate court reversed, holding that motions alleging illegal sentences are cognizable under Rule 3.800(a) without time limitations and that the trial court failed to properly comply with Rule 3.850's documentation requirements.
Motions alleging illegal sentences are cognizable under Rule 3.800(a) without any time limitation and without formal compliance with Rule 3.850's requirements. Additionally, when a trial court denies a motion under Rule 3.850 based on grounds previously decided, it must attach the relevant portion of the files and records to its order, or the denial is improper.
[1] A motion alleging an illegal sentence is cognizable under Rule 3.800(a) without any time limitation.
[2] Motions filed pursuant to Rule 3.800(a) or Rule 3.850 are equally valid when challenging the legality of a sentence.
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“a motion that alleges an illegal sentence is cognizable under Rule 3.800(a) without any time limitation and without the formal compliance with the requirements of Rule 3.850”
Establishes the key legal principle that motions challenging illegal sentences are not subject to Rule 3.850's time constraints
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant filed a post-conviction motion to correct an alleged illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800 and 3.850. The t…
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 Entitlement to No Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Chief Judge.
Appellant filed a post conviction motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.800 and 3.850 which the trial court denied for the reasons that the motion was untimely under Rule 3.850 and that the court previously denied a similar motion. We reverse and remand.
In challenging the legality of a sentence, motions filed pursuant to either Rule 3.800(a) or 3.850 are equally valid. See Early v. State, 516 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (involving a challenge to a departure sentence). And, a motion that alleges an illegal sentence is cognizable under Rule 3.800(a) without any time limitation and without the formal compliance with the requirements of Rule 3.850. Deese v. State, 530 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), review disrn., 534 So. 2d 398 (1988).1 Since appellant’s motion alleges illegal sentence, it was cognizable under Rule 3.800(a).
The trial court’s alternative basis for denial was that appellant’s motion alleges grounds which were decided by an earlier, attached order and thus, under Rule 3.850, it may be dismissed. However, that earlier order is not attached and does not appear elsewhere in the appellate record.
Rule 3.850 states that:
[i]f the motion and the files and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the motion shall be denied without a hearing. In those instances when such denial is not predicated upon the legal insufficiency of the motion on its face, a copy of that portion of the files and records which conclusively shows that the prisoner is entitled to no relief shall be attached to the order. We REVERSE and REMAND with directions that the trial court attach its earlier order or proceed in accordance with Rule 3.800.
SMITH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur. . As they pertain to this appeal, rule 3.850 states that "[a]ny person whose judgment and sentence became final prior to January 1, 1985, shall have until January 1, 1987, to file a motion in accordance with this rule.” Rule 3.800(a), on the other hand, states that "[a] court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it or an incorrect calculation made by it in a sentencing guidelines scoresheet.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wiley v. State, 604 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…as was his contention that he should receive a single sentence for multiple crimes occurring during a single transaction. We agree. Motions to correct an illegal sentence may be filed pursuant to either rule 3.800(a) or rule 3.850. Yates v. State, 556 So. 2d 501, 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). However, double jeopardy arguments of the sort appellant advanced in this case are challenges to convictions, not sentences, and thus are not cognizable under rule 3.800; rather, they must be pursued by rule 3.850. Ferenc v…
-
Echeverria v. State, 949 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…is not the correct procedural vehicle for attacking the merits of an underlying criminal conviction. Although motions to correct an illegal sentence are recognized pursuant to both Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 and 3.850, Yates v. State, 556 So. 2d 501, 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), when the motion attacks the conviction it must be brought under rule 3.850. Wiley v. State, 604 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (citing Ferenc v. State, 563 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Gandy v. State, 560 So. 2d 1363, 1364…
-
Lewis v. State, 926 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…akes a fact-based challenge to the lawfulness of his conviction, the appellant’s claim is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion and should be raised in a rule 3.850 motion. See Martell v. State, 676 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Yates v. State, 556 So. 2d 501, 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Wiley v. State, 604 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (citing Ferenc v. State, 563 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Gandy v. State, 560 So. 2d 1363, 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); State v. Spella, 567 So. 2d 1051, 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 1…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Early v. State, 516 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Deese v. State, 530 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)