LORENZO ALFRED JENKINS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1993-03-02
No. 92-830
Before BARKDULL, COPE and LEVY, JJ.
615 So. 2d 754 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1993) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

Jenkins appealed a trial court's partial grant of relief on his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court reduced his sentence from an illegally recorded 17 years to the legal maximum of 15 years but denied his request for a Walker hearing on whether his arrest during furlough was justified. The appellate court affirmed, holding that such claims must be raised under Rule 3.850, not Rule 3.800.


Holding

The trial court correctly reduced the sentence to 15 years as the legal maximum. Jenkins' claim regarding the Walker hearing is not cognizable on a Rule 3.800 motion but must instead be raised under Rule 3.850. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order without prejudice to Jenkins filing an appropriate Rule 3.850 motion if he has grounds to do so.


Headnotes

[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle to challenge the justification for an arrest that occu…

[2] A defendant seeking relief under Walker v. …

Previewing 2 of 3 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

Key Quotes

“The order under review is therefore affirmed without prejudice to Jenkins to file an appropriate Rule 3.850 motion, if he has grounds to do so.”

Establishes that the appellate court affirmed but allowed Jenkins to pursue a different procedural avenue (Rule 3.850) rather than Rule 3.800 for his Walker claim.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Jenkins entered a plea agreement providing for an initial 15-year sentence with a furlough period, after which he would be resentenced to 4 years if h…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Lorenzo Jenkins appeals an order on his motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court granted relief in part by reducing the sentence to the legal maximum of 15 years. That ruling is entirely correct.

On this appeal Jenkins argues that he should have been granted further relief below in the form of a hearing under Walker v. State, 578 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); see also Walker v. State, 599 So. 2d 233 (Fla.3d DCA 1992) (appeal after remand). In the present case Jenkins entered a plea agreement pursuant to which he was sentenced to a 15-year term and granted a furlough for several days. At the end of the furlough he was to appear in court, at which time he was to be resen-tenced to 4 years pursuant to the plea agreement. However, if Jenkins committed any law violation during the furlough, or failed to appear for resentencing, then the 15-year sentence would stand unchanged.* Jenkins was arrested for an armed robbery committed during the furlough, and as he was in custody on that charge, did not appear for resentencing. The 15-year sentence therefore remained unchanged. Subsequently, the armed robbery case was no-actioned because the State could not locate the witnesses.

Jenkins now contends that he was entitled to a hearing under Walker v. State so that he could have an opportunity to show that his arrest was not justified. See 578 So. 2d at 515. In our view this part of Jenkins’ claim is not cognizable on a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, but must instead be made under Rule 3.850. See Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA) (en banc), review denied, 613 So. 2d 5, No. 79,880 (Fla. Dec. 11, 1992). The order under review is therefore affirmed without prejudice to Jenkins to file an appropriate Rule 3.850 motion, if he has grounds to do so. Any such motion must, however, be sworn and must set forth the factual basis on which Jenkins contends he is entitled to relief under Walker v. State. We express no view on the merits of any such motion.

Affirmed.

*

The 15-year sentence was incorrectly recorded as a 17-year sentence. The order under review reduced the sentence to the legal maximum of 15 years.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Clark v. State, 620 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
    …r mandatory minimum upon his surrender in open court on March 9, 1990. Defendant failed to surrender on March 9, 1990 and was apprehended two years later, on March 4, 1992. The sentence in the present case is like that imposed in Jenkins v. State, 615 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). As stated there, the only ground for relief would be if defendant could establish that his failure to report on the surrender date was because he was physically unable to surrender through no fault of his own. Defendant’s motion…
  • Torres v. State, 36 So. 3d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Sanchez v. State, 683 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Jenkins v. State, 615 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw