STEVE RAY BUNCH, 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.
Steve Ray Bunch appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his habitual violent felony offender status was improper because it relied on out-of-state convictions that were not qualifying convictions under the law at the time of sentencing. The court affirmed the denial, holding that out-of-state convictions have been authorized to support violent habitual sentences since 1988, regardless of prior statutory limitations on in-state convictions.
Out-of-state convictions have been authorized to support a violent habitual sentence since 1988, and the instate conviction limitation applicable to habitual offender status has no application to habitual violent felony offenders under Florida Statute § 775.084(l)(b). Therefore, Bunch's motion was legally insufficient on its face.
[1] Out-of-state convictions have been authorized to support a habitual violent felony offender sentence since 1988.
[2] The statutory limitation requiring in-state convictions for habitual offender status prior to the 1989 amendments does not apply to habitual violent felony offenders.
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“The instate conviction limitation that applied to habitual offender status prior to the invalid 1989 amendments has no application to habitual violent felony offenders.”
Establishes the core distinction that distinguishes habitual violent felony offenders from habitual offenders regarding out-of-state convictions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBunch was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender based on prior out-of-state convictions. He filed a motion to correct illegal sentence under…
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 Habitual Violent Felony Offender cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, Judge.
Steve Ray Bunch'[“Bunch”] appeals the lower court’s denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He contends that he was illegally sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender because the prior convictions used to support the “habitual violent” finding were out-of-state convictions. He asserts that out-of-state convictions did not become “qualifying” convictions for habitual offender purposes until the enactment of the 1989 statutory amendments that were recently held uncon stitutional in State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1993). Accordingly, he claims he is entitled to removal of his habitual violent offender status. Appellant’s motion was denied below as frivolous.
Appellant’s motion was properly denied by the lower court because it was legally insufficient on its face. The instate conviction limitation that applied to habitual offender status prior to the invalid 1989 amendments has no application to habitual violent felony offenders. Fla.Stat. § 775.084(l)(b). Out-of-state convictions have been authorized to support a violent habitual sentence since 1988. Canales v. State, 571 So. 2d 87, 88 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
One additional issue has arisen in this case. The lower court’s order failed to attach copies of any record showing that summary denial was appropriate. By case law, the requirement of attachment of pertinent portions of the record to support summary denial of Rule 3.800(a) motions has previously been established. See Ransom v. State, 601 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Sampson v. State, 598 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The State suggests we should remand for the court to comply with recently amended Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g), which now deals with appeals of 3.800(a) motions. Although not necessary in this case because we have concluded the motion is deficient on its face, we bring the attachment requirement and this new rule to the attention of trial courts and emphasize (as we recently did as to summary denial of Rule 3.850 motions)1 that if orders summarily denying Rule 3.800(a) motions arrive in this court without the necessary record attachments, they will be reversed.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur. . Glasco v. State, 616 So. 2d 499, 500 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Moore v. State, 741 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…to deny the relief requested, it should attach to its denial portions of the [*579] record showing Moore is not entitled to the relief requested. REVERSED AND REMANDED. COBB, J., concurs. GRIFFIN, J., dissents without opinion. . Bunch v. State, 622 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).…
-
Petscher v. State, 936 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…ns of the record sufficient to support the denial. The rule places on the trial court the obligation to attach sufficient portions of the record to refute the defendant’s claim. See Moore v. State, 741 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Bunch v. State, 622 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the purpose of allowing the trial court to attach sufficient portions of the record to refute Brown’s claim for jail time credit. Should the court conclude that the motion cannot be decide…
-
Brown v. State, 816 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…ns of the record sufficient to support the denial. The rule places on the trial court the obligation to attach sufficient portions of the record to refute the defendant’s claim. See Moore v. State, 741 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Bunch v. State, 622 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the purpose of allowing the trial court to attach sufficient portions of the record to refute Brown’s claim for jail time credit. Should the court conclude that the motion cannot be decid…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993)
- Canales v. State, 571 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Renaldo L. Sampson v. State, 598 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Ransom v. State, 601 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Glasco v. State, 616 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)