ANTHONY DAVIS, 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.
Court reversed summary denial of post-conviction relief motion where appellant raised legally sufficient claims regarding illegal adult sentencing without required findings, guideline departures without written reasons, and costs imposed without notice.
A trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing or attach record portions refuting post-conviction claims that sentencing was illegal due to missing statutory findings, guideline departures lacked written reasons, or costs were imposed without notice.
[1] Post-conviction relief claims alleging illegal sentencing without required statutory findings, guideline departures without written reasons, and imposition of costs witho…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnthony Davis appealed a summary denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion raising three grounds: sentencing as an adult without required…
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 Departure From Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Davis appeals from an order summarily denying his motion for rehearing of an earlier denial of post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing or for the attachment of portions of the record refuting appellant’s claims.
Appellant’s amended motion and supporting memorandum consisted of several grounds, three of which warrant further discussion and consideration. Appellant’s first claim of error is that his sentence was illegal because he was sentenced as an adult without an order containing findings required by section 39.111(7)(d), Florida Statutes (1993). Secondly, he claims that his sentences were a departure from the guidelines without written reasons. Finally, he claims that costs and fees were imposed without prior notice. These claims were legally sufficient to require either attachments of portions of the record refuting the claims, or an evidentiary hearing. See generally Church v. State, 652 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Brown v. State, 633 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Smith v. State, 416 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of portions of the record.
GLICKSTEIN, POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kison Evans v. State, 672 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…ourt previously held that this allegation is legally sufficient and precludes summary denial of a Rule 3.850 motion. See Ramos v. State, 660 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Wood v. State, 655 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). See also Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). If there is a complete absence of written findings, there is no authority for sentencing a juvenile as an adult and the resulting sentence is illegal. The state correctly notes that the legislature recently amended section 39.0…
Authorities Cited
- Preston Duke John Church v. State, 652 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- ALL Am. Soup & Salad, Inc. v. Colonial Promenade, 652 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Smith v. State, 416 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Brown v. State, 633 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Buckhalter v. State, 416 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)