JAMES ANGELO HAMPTON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 defendant's motion should be treated as filed under Rule 3.850 and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
The defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his sentence was not properly clarified across all his cases after corrected…
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 Florida Rules Of Criminal Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, who was the defendant below, filed a “Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence” pursuant to Rule 3.800 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The said motion was filed after the trial court had denied a motion entitled “Motion to Define and Clarify Sentence” in which the appellant argued that the trial court had erred in failing to ensure that he received a sentence of ten (10) years with regard to all (94-7000B, 94-7638, and 94-30870) of his cases, after “corrected sentences” were entered in case numbers 94-7000B and 94-30870 only, in June of 1998.
The State, in addition to .pointing out that the instant “Motion to Define and Clarify Sentence” would not be properly brought pursuant to Rule 3.800, candidly acknowledges that “... if this court were to treat his “Motion to Define and Clarify Sentence” as a properly filed post-conviction motion,1 an evidentiary hearing would be necessary to determine whether case number 94-7638 was improperly excluded from the appellant’s 1998 re-sentence.
Accordingly, and consistent with the State’s properly filed concession, this Court treats the appellant’s motion as though it had been filed pursuant to Rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and reverses the denial of said motion and, furthermore, remands the cause for an evidentiary hearing consistent with the foregoing.
Reversed and remanded.
. The "Motion to Define and Clarify Sentence” was filed on June 6, 1999, which was within two (2) years of the defendant’s re-sentence in case numbers 94-7000B and 94-30870 on June 17, 1998. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hampton v. State, 805 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…clarification of sentence; the defendant also appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis to vacate the judgment. We affirm the order on appeal, which was entered on remand after this court’s opinion in Hampton v. State, 758 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). The habitual felony offender sentence in case number 94-7638 is proper, as defendant’s convictions1 for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm are both felonies subject to…