JAMES FREDERICK ALLEN, 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.
James Frederick Allen appealed the summary denial of his postconviction motion challenging his 1992 habitual offender sentence. The court affirmed the denial, finding that Allen's claims that his written and oral sentences conflicted and that his scoresheet improperly included habitualized offenses were either refuted by the record or legally meritless.
The court affirmed the denial of Allen's postconviction motion. The first claim was refuted by the sentencing hearing transcript. The second claim was legally insufficient because habitual offender sentences are exempt from sentencing guidelines procedures, so scoresheet errors do not render such sentences illegal.
[1] A postconviction motion may be affirmed on appeal if the record conclusively shows that the appellant is entitled to no relief, even if the trial court failed to attach s…
[2] A written sentence as a habitual offender that conflicts with an oral sentence as a habitual offender on fewer offenses is not necessarily illegal if the record supports…
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“Although the trial court failed to address Allen's second claim, we find it to be facially insufficient. Since Allen received a habitual offender sentence, he was not entitled to a guidelines sentence.”
Establishes that habitual offender sentences are exempt from guidelines requirements, making scoresheet errors irrelevant to the legality of the sentence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAllen was sentenced as a habitual offender on May 22, 1992. He claimed his written sentence as a habitual offender on five offenses conflicted with th…
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 Postconviction Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James Frederick Allen appeals the summary denial of his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court denied Allen’s motion on the ground that it was procedurally barred as raising issues addressed on direct appeal and in a prior motion for postconviction relief. Although the trial court referred to specific attachments purportedly supporting this conclusion, those attachments were not included in the record. Normally, this would require us to reverse. See Wilson v. State, 724 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Driver v. State, 695 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). In this case, however, the record conclusively shows that Allen’s claims are without merit. We accordingly affirm. See Fla. RApp. P. 9.140(i) (requiring reversal unless record conclusively shows that appellant is entitled to no relief).
Allen claims that his sentence, imposed on May 22, 1992, is illegal on two grounds. He contends that his written sentence as a habitual offender on five offenses conflicts with the trial court’s oral sentence as a habitual offender on only one offense; he also asserts that his scoresheet erroneously includes habitualized offenses as additional offenses at conviction.
Allen’s first claim is refuted by the transcript of the sentencing hearing which he appended to his motion. Although the trial court failed to address Allen’s second claim, we find it to be facially insufficient. Since Allen received a habitual offender sentence, he was not entitled to a guidelines sentence. See § 775.084(4)(e), Fla. Stat. (1991) (exempting habitual offender sentencing from sentencing guidelines procedure). Hence, the fact that Allen’s guidelines scoresheet may have improperly included habitualized offenses as additional offenses does not render his habitual offender sentence illegal. See Robinson v. State, 654 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (affirming denial of rule 3.800 motion based on claim that sentence was illegal due to scoresheet errors where defendant had been sentenced as habitual offender and was not subject to sentencing guidelines).
Affirmed.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 767 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Boerstler v. State, 622 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Allen v. State, 740 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Robinson v. State, 654 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). WEBSTER, DAVIS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.…
-
Fisher v. State, 801 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Jones v. State, 791 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); see also Allen v. State, 740 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 2d [*148] DCA 1999); Freeman v. State, 616 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). ERVIN, BENTON and POLSTON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Robinson v. State, 654 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Arkadile v. State, 695 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Wilson v. State, 724 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Cochran v. State, 724 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)