CURTIS LUEDO POOLE, 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.
Curtis Poole appeals his sentencing as an habitual offender, challenging consecutive ten-year sentences imposed for multiple offenses arising from a single criminal episode. The appellate court affirms the trial court's denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion, finding that the factual question of whether sentences arise from a single episode must be resolved through a Rule 3.850 motion rather than a Rule 3.800(a) motion.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the Rule 3.800(a) motion, holding that whether consecutive sentences arise from a single criminal episode is a factual question, not a pure question of law, and therefore must be resolved under Rule 3.850 rather than Rule 3.800(a).
[1] A claim that consecutive sentences arise from a single criminal episode is not a pure question of law and requires factual evidence, thus it cannot be raised in a motion…
[2] A post-conviction issue requiring an evidentiary hearing must be resolved under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
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“Whether a prisoner's consecutive sentences arise from a single criminal episode is not a pure question of law. Resolution of this issue depends upon factual evidence involving the times, places and circumstances of the offenses.”
Establishes that single criminal episode determinations are factual questions requiring evidentiary hearing, not pure legal questions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePoole was convicted by jury verdict of possession of cocaine, resisting arrest with violence, and three counts of battery on a law enforcement officer…
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 Rule 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Senior Judge.
Curtis Luedo Poole appeals the trial court’s order denying his Rule 3.800(a) Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence. Poole, who was convicted pursuant to a jury verdict of possession of cocaine, resisting arrest with violence, and three counts of battery on a law enforcement officer, was sentenced to five consecutive ten-year sentences as an habitual offender. In his Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence, Poole raises four grounds, only one of which merits discussion. Specifically, Poole argues that the sentencing court improperly imposed consecutive mandatory minimum habitual violent felony offender sentences for acts arising from a single criminal episode.1 Although Poole argues that his offenses occurred during a single criminal episode, a review of the record before us neither conclusively supports nor contradicts Poole’s assertions.2
As a general rule, a post-conviction issue that requires an evidentiary hearing must be resolved under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Nowlin v. State, 639 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), Callaway v. State, 642 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). As Judge Altenbernd wrote in Callaway:
Whether a prisoner’s consecutive sentences arise from a single criminal episode is not a pure question of law. Resolution of this issue depends upon factual evidence involving the times, places and circumstances of the offenses....
Appellant’s claim may, thus, not be advanced pursuant to a Rule 3.800(a) motion. Nowlin v. State, supra. We affirm without prejudice to Mr. Poole’s being able to challenge his sentencing in a properly sworn motion under Rule 3.850. See Borders v. State, 643 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1994).
MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ„ concur. . Our review of the record indicates that Poole was sentenced as an habitual felony offender and not as an habitual violent felony offender. Although the State originally sought to classify Poole as an habitual violent felony offender, defense counsel successfully argued at the sentencing hearing that Poole’s prior record warranted only habitual felony offender status.
. The amended information indicates that the charges against Poole all occurred on May 4, 1989. A review of the transcript of the bond hearing indicates that the charges were a result of a stop by police officers, and a review of the transcript of the sentencing hearing indicates that the officers were scratched, bitten, or otherwise injured during the incident.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 803 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…, exhibits, and [*845] transcript(s) of proceedings, if any, filed in the lower tribunal.... ”); Wilson, 802 So. 2d at 360; Allen v. State, 779 So. 2d 471 & n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Howard v. State, 724 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Poole v. State, 659 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (in rule 3.800(a) claim that consecutive minimum mandatory HVFO sentences were illegal where acts arose from single criminal episode, review of “the record,” including transcripts of bond hearing and sentencing hearing, was incon…
-
Robinson v. State, 659 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…it is not facially illegal, therefore, an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine if the crimes were committed in a single episode. See Callaway v. State, 642 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), approved, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995); Poole v. State, 659 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Booker v. State, 641 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).…
-
Gomez v. State, 682 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Marek v. Singletary, 626 So. 2d 160 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 1869, 128 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994); Poole v. State, 659 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).…
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
- Callaway v. State, 642 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Nowlin v. State, 639 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Borders v. State, 643 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)