GEORGE OSBORNE
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 court held that the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence was affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Appellant sought to correct an illegal sentence, arguing improper imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum terms and erroneous scoring of the prima…
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 First Degree Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The denial of appellant’s motion to correct illegal sentence, brought under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The trial judge correctly denied the motion as to the allegation that the court had improperly imposed consecutive, mandatory minimum terms, because that issue was previously resolved on direct appeal in a manner contrary to appellant’s argument. See Osborne v. State, 644 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
The direct appeal does not show, however, that the issue regarding the scoring of the primary offense had been previously litigated. Appellant raised a facially sufficient argument when he alleged that his conviction for attempted felony murder1 was erroneously scored as a life felony, rather than a first degree felony. See §§ 782.04(1) & 777.04(4)(a),-Fla. Stat. (1991). Because the trial court failed to attach a copy of the sentencing guidelines scoresheet to the order, we are unable to ascertain whether appellant’s allegation is true. We therefore reverse on this issue and remand with directions to the court to attach excerpts from the record which refute appellant’s claim, or to correct the scoresheet and resentence appellant.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED for further proceedings.
ERVIN and ALLEN, JJ., and SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, concur. . Appellant’s conviction for attempted felony murder is valid, because his conviction and appeal were final prior to the issuance of State v. Gray, 654 So. 2d 552 (Fla.1995). See State v. Woodley, 695 So. 2d 297 (Fla.1997).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ripley v. Ripley (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)…e several highly questionable rulings is not a basis for disqualification. Adverse or unfavorable legal rulings, without more, are not legally sufficient grounds for disqualification.”) (citations omitted); see also Eisenberg v. City of Miami Beach, 714 So. 2d 613, 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (“A claim that a trial judge has made an error of law is not a basis for disqualification.” (citing Barwick v. State, 660 So. 2d 685, 692 (Fla. 1995))). While we understand the harshness of eliminating a spouse’s alimony by d…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Collin Gray, 654 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1995)
- State v. Woodley, 695 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1997)