KEVIN TYLER LOMAS, 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 appellate court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, despite the trial court's procedural error, because the motion lacked merit.
Appellant pleaded guilty to armed burglary and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He later filed a motion for post-conviction relief, alleging his se…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Kevin Tyler Lomas has appealed an order of the trial court summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm, although not for the reason stated by the trial court.
In 1983, Lomas pled guilty to armed burglary and was sentenced to life. Armed burglary is a felony of the first degree, punishable by a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment. § 810.02(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1983). In September 1990, Lomas filed the instant motion, alleging that his sentence exceeded the limits provided by law, i.e. that “life” did not equal “a term of years not exceeding life.” The trial court denied the motion, stating that the record showed that an identical motion had been filed in 1984 and denied. However, the trial court failed to attach the previous motion to its order, contrary to the requirement in Rule 3.850 that the trial court attach that portion of the file conclusively showing that the movant is not entitled to relief.
This omission by the trial court would normally result in reversal and remand for attachment of the relevant portions of the record. However, because Lomas’ motion would have been correctly denied on its merits, see Alvarez v. State, 358 So. 2d 10, 12 (Fla.1978) (if a crime is punishable by a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment, the trial court may impose any sentence up to the maximum term authorized by the Legislature), we affirm the order of the trial court.
Affirmed.
JOANOS, C.J., and SMITH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Echo River Sanctuary, LLC v. 21st Mortg. Corp., 348 So. 3d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…roperly perfected their liens under section 319.27. See Ark, 300 So. 3d 1210 (a creditor’s perfected security interest in a mobile home survived the foreclosure sale of the real property where the mobile home sits); USA Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Steward, 588 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (a creditor’s perfected security interest in a mobile home was superior to the holder of a final judgment imposing a constructive trust and lien against the mobile home); Rompon, 377 So. 2d 981 (a creditor’s perfected security in…
-
Condell v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Alphonso Alvarez v. State, 358 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1978)