PAUL DAVID LINTON, 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 held that an illegal sentence claim does not require an oath and can be raised at any time, but an ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires proper signature and verification.
Linton appealed the denial of his motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to advise him that his sentence exceeded the statutory…
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 Probationary Split Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Linton appeals from a summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He alleges his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to advise him that his sentence exceeded the thirty year maximum statutory term for his offense of attempted sexual battery on a person less than 12 years of age, a first degree felony. §§ 794.011(2), 777.04(4)(b) & 775.082(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). Because the motion was not properly signed or verified, we would affirm. See Lambert v. State, 631 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
However, in his motion Linton also alleges he received an illegal sentence. Such a claim need not be made under oath and it may be raised at any time. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a). Linton received a probationary split sentence of 45 years — 25 in prison, followed by 20 years on sexual offender probation. The offense took place in 1996. Thus the newer version of the sentencing guidelines, which took effect in 1994, is applicable. Under this version, it is possible for a split sentence to exceed the statutory maximum, if the combined prison term and probationary period do not exceed the guidelines recommended sentence. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.703(d)(31). See also Ortiz v. State, 696 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
Based on this record, we cannot tell whether or not the 45-year sentence exceeded the guidelines recommended sentence in this case because the trial court failed to attach a copy of the scoresheet. Thus Linton’s allegations have not been refuted as required by the rule. We remand this cause to the trial court to either refute Linton’s claims by attaching portions of the record or to conduct a hearing on his claim.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
PETERSON, J., concurs.
GRIFFIN, C.J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fletcher v. State, 949 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…). Thus, we affirm without prejudice for Fletcher to file a new, properly sworn motion that contains factual allegations. See Gonzalez v. State, 869 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Creel v. State, 769 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Linton v. State, 721 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Van Aernam v. State, 715 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Saba v. State, 677 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). AFFIRMED. THOMPSON, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Lambert v. State, 631 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Ortiz v. State, 696 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)