RONALD MCPHERSON, 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.
Ronald McPherson appealed an order denying his motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence, raising three grounds for relief. The court affirmed the denial as to two grounds but reversed and remanded as to the first ground regarding the sentencing guidelines scoresheet, finding the scoresheet missing from the appellate record and therefore unable to assess the merits of his claim.
The court affirmed the denial of grounds two and three but reversed and remanded ground one. Ground two was legally insufficient under Hair v. State because the defendant failed to seek appellate review of the alleged sentencing error. Ground three failed to allege any breach of criminal procedure rules. Ground one could not be evaluated without the sentencing guidelines scoresheet in the record.
[1] A defendant's failure to seek appellate review of an alleged sentencing error precludes a trial court from considering that issue upon a motion to correct an illegal sent…
[2] A motion to correct an illegal sentence must allege a breach of the rules of criminal procedure to be legally sufficient.
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“defendant's failure to seek appellate review of alleged error in departure from guidelines sentence precluded trial court from considering issue upon motion for post-conviction relief”
Established the legal basis for affirming the denial of ground two under Hair v. State precedent
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcPherson filed a motion to correct illegal sentence raising three grounds for relief. The first ground challenged the accuracy of his sentencing guid…
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 Rules Of Criminal Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
MICKLE, Judge.
This is an appeal of an order denying the appellant’s motion to correct illegal sentence. The motion alleged three grounds for relief.
We conclude that the second ground for relief is legally insufficient pursuant to Hair v. State, 503 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (defendant’s failure to seek appellate review of alleged error in departure from guidelines sentence precluded trial court from considering issue upon motion for post-conviction relief), and that the third ground failed to allege any breach of the rules of criminal procedure. The first ground for relief alleged the inaccurate or improper preparation of the appellant’s sentencing guidelines scoresheet relating to “points for additional cases for probation violation and prior record.” The trial court determined that the scoresheet was properly scored.
However, the scoresheet is not included in the record on appeal, and without it, we are unable to determine whether the allegations in Ground One have merit.
Accordingly, we affirm the order as to Grounds Two and Three, reverse as to Ground One, and remand for attachment of any pertinent documents that refute the appellant’s claim. Zygadlo v. State, 676 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (reversing order denying rule 3.800(a) motion seeking jail credit, and remanding for attachment of documents refuting the appellant’s claim or for amendment of judgment/sentence to provide additional credit); Reyes v. State, 676 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (remanding for attachments showing jury’s verdict or justifying denial of rule 3.800(a) motion questioning whether verdict included specific finding that the appellant had possessed a firearm).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions.
ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Zygadlo v. State, 676 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Raymundo Reyes v. State, 676 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Hair v. State, 503 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)