WILLIE C. GRANT, 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.
Willie C. Grant appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion, challenging his armed robbery sentence as illegal because he was allegedly ineligible for habitual violent offender enhancement status. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that Grant stated a cognizable claim that his prior conviction did not qualify for sentencing enhancement under Florida's habitual offender statute.
Grant's sentence was potentially illegal if the prior conviction used for enhancement did not qualify under the habitual offender statute, and such an illegal sentence can be challenged in a Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion even if not raised on appeal. The trial court must either attach records refuting Grant's claims or hold an evidentiary hearing to determine eligibility.
[1] A habitual offender sentence applied to an unqualified defendant constitutes an illegal sentence that may be challenged in a post-conviction relief motion.
[2] For the purposes of a post-conviction relief motion, the facts alleged in the defendant's motion must be presumed true unless refuted by records.
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 habitual offender sentence applied to an unqualified defendant constitutes an illegal sentence which exceeds the statutory limits and may be challenged in a Rule 3.850 motion even if not raised on appeal”
Establishes that substantive illegality of habitual offender sentencing can be raised post-conviction despite procedural error waiver rules
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGrant received an enhanced sentence for armed robbery based on alleged habitual violent offender status. The prior felony used for enhancement was an …
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 Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
GOSHORN, Chief Judge.
Willie C. Grant raises numerous issues in this appeal of the trial court’s summary denial of Grant’s Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We find that the only issue meriting discussion is Grant’s claim that his sentence for armed robbery is illegal because he was not eligible for habitual violent offender status. Grant alleges the prior conviction used to enhance his sentence did not qualify under the habitual offender statute.
Section 775.084(2), Florida Statutes (1991) provides that “the placing of a person on probation without an adjudication of guilt shall be treated as a prior conviction if the subsequent offense for which he is to be sentenced was committed during such probationary period.” Grant claims that the prior felony used for his enhancement was an aggravated assault for which adjudication was withheld and that he was placed on probation which was successfully completed four years prior to the offense for which he received the enhanced sentence. Since Grant was allegedly not on probation at the time of the new offenses, he argues that the assault could not be used as a prior conviction. Furthermore, Grant alleges that none of his other prior convictions are for crimes listed among those necessary to find him a habitual violent felony offender. See § 775.084(l)(b), Fla.Stat. (1991).
For the purposes of this appeal, we must presume that the facts alleged in defendant’s motion are true, absent any records refuting the claims. See Harich v. State, 484 So. 2d 1239 (Fla.1986). Although it is true that procedural errors in habitual offender sentencing must be raised on appeal and are barred from consideration in a Rule 3.850 proceeding, Lazarus v. State, 412 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), a habitual offender sentence applied to an unqualified defendant constitutes an illegal sentence which exceeds the statutory limits and may be challenged in a Rule 3.850 motion even if not raised on appeal. See Debose v. State, 580 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Grant’s motion for post-conviction relief and remand the cause with instructions for the trial court to attach records to refute Grant’s claims or alternatively, to hold an evidentiary hearing.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
HARRIS and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Prince v. State, 684 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…same date. In its order denying relief on this ground, the trial court relied on the number of convictions and did not discuss whether the convictions were sequential. This issue is properly raised in a motion under rule 3.850. See Grant v. State, 611 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (allowing defendant to raise postconviction relief claim regarding whether he qualified for habitual offender sentence). Section 775.084(5), Florida Statutes (1993), requires sequential convictions to qualify for habitual offende…
-
Marchell Jackson v. State, 699 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Grant v. State, 611 So. 2d 110, 111 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) and Jackson v. State, 651 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Medina v. State, 690 So. 2d 1241 (Fla.1997). COBB, W. SHARP and HARRIS, JJ., concur.…
-
Harris v. State, 700 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Stroble v. State, 689 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Grant v. State, 611 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). PETERSON, THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Harich v. State, 484 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1986)
- DeVITTO v. State, 580 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Ozell Debose, Jr. v. State, 580 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Lazarus v. State, 412 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)