O.C. SCOTT, A/K/A OTIS C. SCOTT, 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 erred by failing to attach all relevant portions of the record to support its denial of the motion to correct an illegal sentence.
Appellant Scott moved to correct an illegal sentence, arguing a mandatory minimum sentence was improperly imposed without proof of firearm use. The tr…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
[*551] PER CURIAM.
O.C. Scott appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. The trial court entered an order addressing the issues raised in the motion, but failed to attach all the relevant portions of the record to support its ruling. We reverse and remand this matter for further proceedings.
Scott pled guilty to robbery and allegedly was sentenced in compliance with a plea agreement. Neither the agreement nor the transcript of the plea colloquy is made a part of the record on appeal. Without the relevant documentation, this court cannot determine the offense to which Scott entered his plea, or any other concessions made therein by appellant with regard to the offense and sentencing.
Scott makes several arguments within his motion; however, only one merits discussion. It is asserted that the three year minimum mandatory sentence imposed is illegal because the state fails to show that the robbery was committed with a firearm and that a factual basis exists to support such a determination. Without record documentation to contradict Scott’s allegations, we are unable to determine if the trial court made the appropriate findings. This failure requires reversal of the trial court’s order denying the motion. See Bell v. State, 589 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
On remand the trial court shall review the motion to correct illegal sentence and enter a new order. If the court again denies the motion, it shall attach the portions of the record which conclusively refute Scott’s allegations or, if the documentation and the transcript of the plea colloquy are insufficient, the court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine if a factual basis exists for the minimum mandatory sentence.
Reversed and remanded.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 633 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…teer v. State, 627 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (rule 3.800 motion challenging imposition of minimum mandatory on basis that defendant did not possess gun during robberies); Blount v. State, 627 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (same); Scott v. State, 622 So. 2d 550 (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, 6…
Authorities Cited
- Bell v. State, 589 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)