OLIVER G. BELL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Predicate Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Oliver G. Bell, seeks review of the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. We reverse because the trial court’s order failed to address or refute Bell’s facially sufficient claim that he was illegally sentenced as a habitual felony offender. Bell alleges that he does not have the predicate offenses to be sentenced as a habitual felony offender, and that his habitual offender sentence is therefore illegal. See Green v. State, 662 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The trial court denied the motion without attaching any documentation which would refute this claim.
Accordingly we reverse. On remand, should the trial court again deny the motion, it must attach portions of the record which refute Bell’s claim.
Reversed and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and BLUE and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2001)…PARIENTE, J. We have for review the decision in Bover v. State, 732 So. 2d 1187, 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), in which the Third District Court of Appeal certified conflict with the decisions of the Second District Court of Appeal in Bell v. State, 693 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), Botelho v. State, 691 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), and Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (en banc), and the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Freshman v. State, 730 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…
-
Bover v. State, 732 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…of law, have imposed. Such an error can be determined at any time from a review of the defendant’s criminal records. Id. at 78 (emphasis added); see also Freshman v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D707, 730 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Bell v. State, 693 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Botelho v. State, 691 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The logic of Judge is that the habitual offender statute increases the legal maximum-term. In the present case, habituali-zation of defendant means that for his third-degree f…1 / 2
-
Moore v. State, 748 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…habitualization cannot be raised by such a motion. See Bover v. State, 732 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), review granted, No. 95,649, 743 So. 2d 508 (Fla. Oct. 26, 1999). Contra Freshman v. State, 730 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Bell v. State, 693 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Botelho v. State, 691 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Assuming for purposes of discussion, however, that Rule 3.800(a) could be used for that purpose, and further assuming that t…
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
- Green v. State, 662 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)