JAMES TIM WORD, JR., 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 appellate court held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the defendant's motion to correct sentence without attaching an adequate record.
The defendant was sentenced for robberies and attacked mandatory sentences for possessing a firearm during those robberies, alleging he did not posses…
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 Mandatory Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James Tim Word, Jr., appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse because the trial court failed to attach an adequate record to support its denial of Word’s motion.
Word was sentenced in 1990 for two robberies. Six years later, he filed his rule 3.800 motion attacking two three-year mandatory sentences he is serving which were imposed in 1990 for possessing a firearm during the robberies. In his motion, Word alleges that he did not possess a firearm during the robberies. The trial court denied Word’s motion, stating: “A rule 3.800 motion is not appropriate for significant questions of fact. Further, the sentence is not illegal.” In Butchek, v. State, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D2157, — So. 2d — [1996 WL 566678] (Fla. 2d DCA, Oct. 4, 1996), this court recently addressed the same issue in an appeal from an order denying a motion filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a). This court stated:
Members of this court have not always agreed that this issue involves an illegal sentence. But the court has consistently required that trial courts determine whether section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes, has been properly invoked. Dye v. State, 667 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Poiteer v. State, 627 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The trial court, on remand, shall determine whether Butchek manually possessed a firearm during the robbery; if it can be ascertained that he did by referencing documents in the record these should be appended as attachments to a subsequent order denying the motion.
(footnote omitted).
In accordance with Butchek, we reverse and remand this case to the trial court for further consideration consistent with But-chek.
RYDER, A.C.J., and PARKER and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Mancino, 705 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 1998)…f rule 3.850. Following its earlier precedent, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that Mancino’s motion had been properly filed under rule 3.800(a). See, e.g., Butchek v. State, 686 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Word v. State, 682 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Brown v. State, 633 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); accord Todd v. State, 659 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). The district court of appeal remanded with directions that the trial court determine whether Mancino had manually posse…
-
Mancino v. State, 689 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…y sentence imposed under section 775.087(2) based on a claim that there is no evidence to support the fact that the defendant actually possessed a firearm during the commission of one of the statutorily enumerated felonies. See, e.g., Word v. State, 682 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Brown v. State, 633 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (Altenbernd, J., dissenting). We must, therefore, consistent with our precedent, reverse the trial court’s order and direct on remand that it determine whether the appellant manua…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Poiteer v. State, 627 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Trent DYE v. State, 667 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)