PERRY BAKER, 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 court affirmed the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) because the motion failed to affirmatively allege that court records demonstrate entitlement to relief on their face.
A motion to correct an illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) must affirmatively allege that court records demonstrate entitlement to relief on their face, and conclusory allegations are insufficient.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) must affirmatively allege that court records demonstrate entitlement to relief o…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief”
The motion must affirmatively allege this language per Mancino to satisfy rule 3.800(a) requirements.
Baker filed a sworn motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), which was denied by the trial court…
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 Rule 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges an order by which his sworn motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), was denied.
In order to raise an illegal sentencing claim pursuant to rule 3.800(a), there are a number of requirements:
1. The error must have resulted in an illegal sentence. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a)(1998); State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 432-433 (Fla. June 11, 1998); Hopping v. State, 708 So. 2d 263, 265 (Fla.1998).
2. The error must appear on the face of the record. See State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983, 988 (Fla.1995).
3. The motion must affirmatively allege that “the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief.” Mancino, supra at 433.1
Appellant’s motion does not allege that the court’s records will demonstrate a clear entitlement to relief. We, therefore, affirm.
In light of the fact that Mancino imposes a new pleading requirement, this affirmance is without prejudice to appellant’s ability to file a properly pled rule 3.800(a) motion in the trial court.
JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., and SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, concur. . We presume that this requirement would necessitate more than mere conclusory allegations. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 595 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (affirming denial of 3.850 motion on grounds that motion contained only concluso-ry allegations in support of claims for relief). The allegations required by Mancino at a minimum would have to address how and where the record demonstrates an entitlement to relief.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (72 total)
-
Nelson v. State, 760 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…t court’s order, we observe that appellant failed to affirmatively allege in his motion where in the record information can be found demonstrating his entitlement to relief. See Toro v. State, 719 So. 2d 947, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167, n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). In accordance with State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998), the judge in his order wrote that he had reviewed the court file. We agree with the Third District that the trial court should examine not only the' court fil…
-
Jackson v. State, 803 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…e error must have resulted in an illegal sentence,” 2) “[t]he error must appear on the face of the record,” and 3) “[t]he motion must affirmatively allege that ‘the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief.’ ” Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), quoting State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998); cf. Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1183 (Fla.2001). As in Baker, we presume “this [third] requirement would necessitate more than mere conclusory allegations”: at minimum, “how a…
-
Carroll Lauramore v. State, 949 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion, the appellant must allege: (1) he is serving an illegal sentence; (2) the error appears on the face of the record; and (3) how and where the record demonstrates an entitlement to relief. See Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Appellant’s motion is facially insufficient, as he alleges neither how nor where the record demonstrates that his crimes arose from a single criminal episode. See Harris v. State, 875 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding tha…
Previewing 3 of 72 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995)
- Darin S. Hopping v. State, 708 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 1998)
- Williams v. State, 595 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)