ANTHONY ANFIELD, 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 a plea colloquy alone is insufficient to conclusively establish a factual basis for imposing minimum mandatory sentences.
Anfield appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct sentence, arguing that the minimum mandatory sentences imposed were illegal because he di…
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 Factual Basis For Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Anfield appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct sentence. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Anfield claims the four consecutive three-year minimum mandatory sentences imposed pursuant to section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1989), constitute an illegal sentence because he did not carry a firearm during the commission of the offenses. If Anfield’s claim is true, the sentence is illegal. See Bell v. State, 589 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
In summarily denying Anfield’s motion, the trial court attached a copy of the plea colloquy. The colloquy reflects that An-field’s counsel stipulated to a factual basis for the offenses. However, that transcript is not sufficient to establish conclusively that there was factual information to support the imposition of the minimum mandatory sentences. Cf. Koenig v. State, 597 So. 2d 256 (Fla.1992).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court may again deny the relief requested and attach to its order of denial that portion of the record refuting Anfield’s claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Poiteer v. State, 627 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…ion of a firearm during the commission of the robbery.” 589 So. 2d at 1375. The district court concluded that Bell’s assertion, if true, constituted fundamental error. This court has previously determined that it will follow Bell. Anfield v. State, 615 So. 2d 853 (Fla.2d DCA 1993); Ahedo v. State, 603 So. 2d 80 (Fla.2d DCA 1992).1 However, the present case suggests the need to explain our position. We hold that the absence of a factual basis during a plea colloquy, or the failure to make specific findings re…
-
Brown v. State, 633 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…0 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (rule 3.800 motion alleging that minimum mandatory was illegal because state failed to show that robbery was committed with firearm and that factual basis existed to impose such on defendant's plea to robbery); Anfield v. State, 615 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) ("motion to correct sentence" alleging that sentence was illegal because defendant did not carry firearm during commission of offense); Ahedo v. State, 603 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (motion filed pursuant to rule 3.850 challeng…
-
Monty Pavey v. State, 720 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…do not know whether or not Pavey’s oath met this requirement. The trial court was correct to deny Pavey’s motion even though one document out of two did contain a proper oath. See Brown v. State, 620 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Oramas v. State, 615 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order of dismissal, but, as the trial court did, do so without prejudice to Pavey to refile the motion and memorandum of law with proper oaths. Since it appears that the two-year time li…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Koenig v. State, 597 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1992)
- Bell v. State, 589 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)