ORVILLE PATRICK KERR, 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 the trial court's denial of one ground for postconviction relief was not conclusively refuted by the record and must be reconsidered.
Appellant sought postconviction relief, arguing his sentence was illegal because the offenses predated the effective date of the sentencing guidelines…
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 Effective Date Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1063] PER CURIAM.
Orville Patrick Kerr appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
Kerr raised three grounds for relief in his motion. The first two grounds are not facially sufficient; therefore, the denial of those allegations is affirmed. The third allegation challenges the legality of Kerr’s guidelines sentence on the basis that his offenses predated the effective date of the sentencing guidelines and he did not affirmatively elect guidelines sentencing. If this allegation is true, then Kerr may be entitled to relief. See Smith v. State, 537 So. 2d 982 (Fla.1989); Benitez v. State, 578 So. 2d 43 (Fla.2d DCA 1991); Blackwelder v. State, 570 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
The trial court’s attachment to the denial does not conclusively refute Kerr’s allegation. Accordingly, we reverse this part of the order denying Kerr’s motion and remand the case to the trial court. On remand, unless the case files and records conclusively show that Kerr is not entitled to relief, the trial court shall order the state to file an answer. After receipt of the answer, the trial court shall determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If the trial court should summarily deny the motion again, it shall attach such portions of the record which conclusively refute Kerr’s allegation. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain appellate review.
HALL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Antonal Thornton v. State, 767 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…th a copy of the scoresheet used in sentencing, pursuant to this court’s order. The preparation of a scoresheet is required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(1). See Holton v. State, 573 So. 2d 284, 290-91 (Fla.1990); Mohammed v. State, 591 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); McIntyre v. State, 502 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 5 th DCA 1987); Barr v. State, 474 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Gage v. State, 461 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Thornton presents numerous points on appeal, which we find have no merit…
Authorities Cited
- Alphonso P. Smith v. State, 537 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1989)
- Blackwelder v. State, 570 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Pearce v. State, 578 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)