GUY BARNES, 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 motion to correct an illegal sentence based on improperly scored victim injury points should not be summarily denied as successive.
Appellant Guy Edward Barnes appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his sentence was based on a scoresh…
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.
Guy Edward Barnes appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence. The court incorrectly denied as successive1 the motion which asserts that the sentence imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement was based on a guidelines scoresheet in which the court improperly scored points for victim injury in contravention of Karchesky v. State, 591 So. 2d 930 (Fla.1992). As it appears this argument may have merit, we reverse and remand.
While the plea agreement itself does not establish that Barnes negotiated for a guidelines sentence, it is apparent from the plea colloquy that Barnes and his counsel assumed that the sentence to be imposed was within the recommended range of the sentencing guidelines. When an agreed sentence is based on a scoresheet which includes improperly scored victim injury points, the case must be reversed and remanded. See Morris v. State, 605 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Beasley v. State, 605 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
On remand, unless the case files and records conclusively demonstrate that Barnes is not entitled to relief, the court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing. If the court again concludes that summary denial is proper, it must attach to its order those portions of the case file and record which refute Barnes’ claim. If the court determines that the motion should be granted, the state shall be allowed to withdraw from the plea agreement, if desired; or Barnes shall be resentenced in accordance with this court’s decisions in Wilson v. State, 648 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and Morris, 605 So. 2d at 514.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur. . Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 contains no proscription against successive motions. Braddy v. State, 520 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 528 So. 2d 1183 (Fla.1988).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)…ect an illegal sentence “at any time.” Florida courts have held, and we agree, that the phrase “at any time” allows defendants to file successive motions under rule 3.800. See Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170, 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Barnes v. State, 661 So. 2d 71, 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Thus, rule 3.800 expressly rejects application of res judicata principles to such motions. Again, however, this conclusion does not end the analysis. Although res judicata may not apply to motions filed under rule 3.800, the…
-
Price v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…l as for case number 95-1397. The trial court denied the motion as successive and attached the earlier order denying relief. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 contains no proscription against the filing of successive motions. Barnes v. State, 661 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). However, a defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue which has already been decided against him. Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). We reverse the order denying the motion because it fa…
-
Antoine L. McBRIDE v. State, 810 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…t to appeal that order, he may not file a successive motion raising the same issue. The trial court agreed with the State and denied McBride’s motion as successive.2 Rule 3.800(a) does not expressly prohibit successive motions. See Barnes v. State, 661 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). However, this court has previously held that successive Rule 3.800(a) motions may be barred by the law of the case doctrine. See Kelly v. State, 739 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Thus, the issue we must resolve is whether the…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Karchesky v. State, 591 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 1992)
- Silas v. Morris, 605 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Harrel Braddy v. State, 520 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Wilson v. State, 648 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Beasley v. State, 605 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)