TERRANCE SMITH, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the summary denial of Smith's Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging his sentence under unconstitutional 1995 guidelines because the motion failed to allege the offense date and whether the sentence could have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines, but allowed refiling with proper allegations.
A Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging a sentence imposed under unconstitutional 1995 guidelines is facially insufficient and properly denied when it fails to allege the offense date and whether the sentence could have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines.
[1] A motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) challenging a sentence imposed under unconstitutional sentencing guidelines must allege the date of the offense…
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 intelligenceSmith was sentenced on July 3, 1997 under the 1995 sentencing guidelines, which were subsequently held unconstitutional in Heggs v. State.…
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 Facially Insufficient Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, C.J.
Terrance Smith appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Smith alleged that he was sentenced on 3 July 1997 under the 1995 guidelines which have been held to be unconstitutional. See Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000).
The state argues that Smith did not allege in his motion, as required by Heggs, the date of his offense or that the sentence imposed under the 1995 guidelines could not have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines. We affirm the trial court’s order because Smith’s motion is facially insufficient, but without prejudice to Smith’s filing h sufficient motion. See e.g., Kahm v. State, 763 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (denial of Rule 3.800(a) motion under Heggs affirmed without prejudice where defendant failed to allege date of offense or that sentence could not have been imposed under 1994 guidelines); Rivero v. State, 758 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (order denying motion seeking resentencing under Heggs affirmed where motion failed to allege date of offense, but without prejudice to file new motion alleging date of offense and showing standing to challenge sentence under Heggs).
AFFIRMED Without Prejudice.
W. SHARP, and PLEUS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Williams, 797 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 2001)…elf when he testified. Similarly, we conclude that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to pursue the voluntary intoxication defense as such a defense would have been inconsistent with Williams’ theory of the case. See Gavilan v. State, 765 So. 2d 308, 308-09 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (“The defense of intoxication that could have negated proof of specific intent to commit the crimes was inconsistent with [the defense that the defendant did not commit the crime].”). Generally, “[c]ounsel may make a tact…
-
Gill v. State, 771 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. Mfirmed without prejudice to appellant-refiling a facially sufficient motion to correct sentence. See Capio v. State, 765 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Smith v. State, 765 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). KLEIN, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
-
Shepard v. State, 967 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…24, 928 (Fla.2000), and that the resulting sentence constitutes a departure from the 1994 sentencing guidelines. See Daniels v. State, 771 So. 2d 57, 57-58 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The motion must also include the date of the offense. See Smith v. State, 765 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Appellant’s motion contains the required allegations and is, therefore, facially sufficient. However, the trial court denied the motion without any record attachments. We therefore reverse the trial court’s summary denial of t…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Rivero v. State, 758 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Ungarelli v. State, 758 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Kahm v. State, 763 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)