PHILLIP ADLINGTON, 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.
Appellant challenged his 1991 habitual offender sentence as illegal under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), alleging the predicate crimes were not proven. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of the motion, holding that Rule 3.800(a) is limited to illegal sentences not requiring an evidentiary hearing, and an evidentiary hearing would be necessary to resolve whether proper predicate offenses existed.
Rule 3.800(a) relief is limited to correction of illegal sentences that do not require an evidentiary hearing. An allegation that predicate convictions were not proven does not make a habitual sentence illegal under this rule when an evidentiary hearing would be necessary to resolve the issue. The motion was properly denied, and the issue should have been raised on direct appeal or through a Rule 3.850 motion.
[1] A motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is limited to the correction of illegal sentences that do not require an evidentiary hearing.
[2] An insufficient predicate offense for a habitual offender sentence does not render the sentence illegal within the meaning of Davis v. …
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“Rule 3.800(a) is limited to the correction of illegal sentences which do not require an evidentiary hearing.”
Establishes the fundamental limitation on Rule 3.800(a) motions—they cannot be used to challenge sentences when an evidentiary hearing is necessary.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Phillip Adlington was sentenced as a habitual offender in 1991. He filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) attackin…
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 Predicate Crimes cases and more on FLexlaw
[*514] WARNER, J.
By a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), appellant attacks his 1991 habitual offender sentence as being illegal because the requisite predicate crimes were allegedly not proven. Rule 3.800(a) is limited to the correction of illegal sentences which do not require an evidentiary hearing. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998); State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983, 988 (Fla. 1995), receded, from on other grounds by Dixon v. State, 730 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1999). While appellant alleges that the record, which has not been provided, will confirm that there is no evidence of the necessary predicate convictions, that does not prove that they did not exist and that the habitual sentence would therefore be illegal. Cf. Speights v. State, 711 So. 2d 167, 168-69 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. granted, No. 93,207, 728 So. 2d 204 (Fla. Nov. 16, 1998). In Speights, the first district noted that even if the court vacated a habitual offender sentence for lack of proper predicate offense, the state could still present evidence on remand of additional prior convictions which might justify the enhanced sentence. See 711 So. 2d at 168-69. Thus, using an insufficient predicate offense did not make a habitual sentence “illegal” within the meaning of Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193, 1196 (Fla.1995), and Callaway, 658 So. 2d at 983.
In this ease, an evidentiary hearing would be necessary to resolve the issue, which is unavailable through rule 3.800(a) relief. This issue could have been raised on direct appeal or by a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, but was not, and relief is now untimely pursuant to those rules. We also affirm the denial of the motion for transcription of hearings as moot.
Affirmed.
DELL and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maynard v. State, 763 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…holding that rule 3.800(a) motions should be limited to sentencing issues that can be resolved as a matter of law without an evi-dentiary determination), receded from on other grounds by Dixon v. State, 730 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1999); Adlington v. State, 735 So. 2d 513, 514 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(“Rule 3.800(a) is limited to the correction of illegal sentences which do not require an evidentiary hearing.”); Campbell v. State, 696 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(“Relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.…
-
Potter v. State, 769 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…under rule 3.800(a), that rule is limited to the correction of illegal sentences which do not require an evidentiary hearing and his contentions do not support such a result. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998); Adlington v. State, 735 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). For these reasons, we affirm the denial of Potter’s motion for post-conviction relief.…
-
Hart v. State, 773 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…29 (Fla.1998). To the extent that they go beyond that, consideration was also appropriate in the trial court under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, as the motion was timely and verified under that rule. [*607] See, e.g., Adlington v. State, 735 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The state has now filed a response in this court which concedes that no corrected scoresheet was found in the record and that the scoresheet attached to its response filed in the trial court was of questionable accuracy. The st…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995)
- State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995)
- Dixon v. State, 730 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1999)
- Speights v. State, 711 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)