RICHARD W. BURNS, 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.
Richard W. Burns appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that erroneous victim injury points were added to his sentencing scoresheet, resulting in an unjustified upward departure from guidelines. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, finding the trial court improperly dismissed the motion as an abuse of process without adequately addressing the merits.
The trial court erred in dismissing the motion as an abuse of process without addressing the substantive claims. A Rule 3.800 motion, unlike Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motions, has no filing limitations, and if the merits have not been previously decided by prior orders, the court must address them. On remand, if the trial court again denies the motion, it must attach documents conclusively demonstrating Burns is not entitled to relief.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800 is not subject to the same limitations as postconviction relief motions filed under Rule 3.850.
[2] A trial court must attach documents that conclusively demonstrate a defendant is not entitled to relief when denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence.
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“A rule 3.800 motion has no such limitations. However, if the merit of these issues has been the subject of prior orders, there is no reason for the court to address them again in absence of a change in case law.”
Distinguishes Rule 3.800 sentencing correction motions from Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motions, establishing that lack of filing limitations applies to 3.800 motions and prior judicial consideration requires documentation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBurns pleaded no contest to attempted capital sexual battery and four counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a child pursuant to a plea agreement calli…
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 Victim Injury Points cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Richard W. Burns appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. We reverse.
Burns pled no contest to attempted capital sexual battery and four counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a child. Burns asserts that he entered his plea in exchange for a guideline sentence. The sentencing guidelines called for a sentence of seventeen to twenty two years. The plea agreement called for a sentence of twenty years’ prison for count one to be served concurrently with ten years’ prison for the four other counts. The prison sentences were to be followed by ten years of probation on all counts to run concurrently.
Burns contests the addition of victim injury points to his scoresheet total. He asserts that his sentence is an upward departure sentence where no contemporaneous written reasons were entered to justify the departure, due to the erroneous addition of victim injury points. Burns claims that this error would place him one cell lower on the sentencing range of the guideline scoresheet. The trial court denied his motion as an abuse of process, asserting that this was his fifth motion attacking his plea. There is nothing attached to the court’s order substantiating the assertion that these issues were considered by the trial court in its ruling on previous motions.
The trial court justifies its assessment of the abuse of process by citing two cases dealing with postconviction relief under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850, where there is a limitation on when motions can be filed and what constitutes an abuse of procedure. Spaziano v. State, 545 So. 2d 843 (Fla.1989); and McCuiston v. State, 507 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). A rule 3.800 motion has no such limitations. However, if the merit of these issues has been the subject of prior orders, there is no reason for the court to address them again in absence of a change in case law.
On remand, if the trial court again denies the motion, it should attach to the order those documents that conclusively demonstrate that Burns is not entitled to relief.
Reversed and remanded.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shaw v. State, 780 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…does rule 3.850, a defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue that has already been decided. See Fuston v. State, 764 So. 2d 779, 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Price v. State, 692 So. 2d 971, 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Burns v. State, 637 So. 2d 937, 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). However, the trial court failed to attach Shaw’s September 16, 1998, motion or the trial court’s order on that motion. When ruling on a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion, the trial court must justify the denial of the…
-
Orosco v. State, 730 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…is result, we note that this sentencing issue might be barred if Orosco raised it in a prior rule 3.850 or rule 3.800(a) motion and it was adjudicated on its merits. See, e.g., Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170, 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Burns v. State, 637 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). If the trial court again denies Orosco’s motion on this claim, it must attach those portions of the record which refute the claim. See Wilson v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Affirmed in part; reversed in part. CA…
-
Johnson v. State, 768 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…d that a motion to correct an illegal sentence raising a new issue may not be denied on these grounds. See Pnce v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that rule 3.800 contains no proscription against successive motions); Bums v. State, 637 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (holding that the abuse of procedure provision in rule 3.850 is inapplicable to rule 3.800 proceedings). Although this error would ordinari [*478] ly require reversal, we affirm because we were able to ascertain from the record be…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McCUISTON v. State, 507 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Spaziano v. State, 545 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 1989)