DESI ARNEZ BARFIELD, 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.
Desi Arnez Barfield appealed the denial of a Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging his sentence, specifically contesting the denial of credit against a 10-year sentence after violating community control. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal but without prejudice, allowing Barfield to refile under the newly clarified Rule 3.850 procedure for unlawful sentences.
The trial court properly denied the 3.800 motion because it was the wrong procedural vehicle under the newly clarified law; however, the court affirmed without prejudice to allow Barfield to file a Rule 3.850 motion within 60 days if his claim involves an 'unlawful sentence' rather than an 'illegal sentence.'
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under rule 3.800 is appropriate for sentences that exceed the maximum period set forth by law for a particular offense.
[2] A claim that credit against a sentence was unlawfully denied may be properly raised in a motion for postconviction relief under rule 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“Rule 3.800 was the appropriate mechanism for raising appellant's challenge according to the law at the time at which he filed his motion.”
Establishes that the trial court's choice of procedural rule was proper under existing law at the time of filing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarfield was sentenced to 10 years and allegedly was illegally denied credit against that sentence after he violated community control. He filed a Rul…
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 Rules Of Criminal Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, Judge.
This is a timely appeal of a denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. Appellant raises one issue: Whether the trial court erred in summarily denying his motion in which he alleged that he was illegally denied credit against a 10-year sentence after he violated community control. We find that appellant’s motion was improperly brought pursuant to rule 3.800, and therefore, affirm the trial court’s denial of posteon-viction relief, but do so without prejudice to appellant to file a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Rule 3.800 was the appropriate mechanism for raising appellant’s challenge according to the law at the time at which he filed his motion. See Rouse v. State, 643 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Since appellant’s filing of a 3.800 motion, however, the supreme court has clarified the distinctions between an “illegal sentence,” properly remedied through a 3.800 motion, and an “unlawful sentence,” properly corrected under rule 3.850. State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983, 987-88 (Fla.1995); Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995).
It is unclear from appellant’s 3.800 motion whether the denial of credit against his sentence resulted in a “illegal sentence” as defined under Davis, supra, one that does “exceed the maximum period set forth by law for a particular offense without regard to the guidelines.” Davis, 661 So. 2d at 1196; also see Schroeder v. State, No. 95-3726, — So. 2d-(Fla. 1st DCA March 27, 1996). We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s 3.800 motion.
If appellant had the benefit of Davis, however, he may have been able to state a preliminary basis for relief pursuant to rule 8.850. Appellant’s rule 3.800 motion was filed within the two-year time limit enumerated in rule 3.850(b). We, therefore, affirm without prejudice. Appellant has 60 days to file a 3.850 motion that complies with that rule of criminal procedure. If the trial court finds that appellant’s claim for relief is without merit, it should attach portions of the record refuting appellant’s allegations.
MICKLE, J., concurs.
BENTON, J., concurring in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Quinten Edward Chaney v. State, 678 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…3.800(a) motion but rather a motion for postconvietion relief pursuant to rule 3.850. State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1995); Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995); Sullivan v. State, 674 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Barfield v. State, 671 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). AFFIRMED. COBB, W. SHARP and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . See §§ 812.13(2) and 775.082(3)(c), Fla. Stat. . (1991).…
-
Williams v. State, 699 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)….800(a) unless the denial makes the sentence illegal in that it exceeds the maximum allowed by law, see Sullivan v. State, 674 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), such a claim is still cognizable under rule 3.850, see id. at 215 n. 1; Barfield v. State, 671 So. 2d 820, 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Accordingly, the order denying relief is reversed and remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of portions of the record conclusively showing that Appellant is entitled to no relief. In so doin…
-
Melton v. State, 720 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…red by rule 3.850). Accordingly, our affirmance on that claim only is without prejudice for appellant to refile it in a properly sworn motion which complies with rule 3.850, within 60 days from the date of this opinion. See, e.g., Barfield v. State, 671 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). AFFIRMED. MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., and SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995)
- State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995)
- Rouse v. State, 643 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)