LEVORY W. HICKMON, 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.
Levory Hickmon appealed the summary denial of his motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), alleging entitlement to relief under Heggs v. State. The court reversed and remanded after the Florida Supreme Court established that a longer window period applies to such claims.
Hickmon's allegations are sufficient under the applicable law, and because the Florida Supreme Court has now established that the longer window period is correct, the court reverses the summary denial and remands for the trial court to reconsider the motion.
[1] A motion alleging entitlement to relief under Heggs v. …
[2] A trial court must reconsider a case if the longer window period for Heggs claims is determined to be the correct one to apply.
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“He alleges that he is entitled to relief under Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). These allegations are sufficient pursuant to Parker v. State, 767 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).”
Establishes that Hickmon's allegations under Heggs are legally sufficient
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHickmon filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) raising claims under Heggs v. State. The trial court summarily denied the mot…
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 Heggs Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
[*457] PER CURIAM.
Hickmon appeals from the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).1 He alleges that he is entitled to relief under Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). These allegations are sufficient pursuant to Parker v. State, 767 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). The trial court acknowledged that if the longer window period applied, he would reconsider the case. Since the Florida Supreme Court has now ruled the longer window period is the correct one to apply,2 we reverse and remand for further consideration by the trial court.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
W. SHARP, HARRIS and PLEUS, JJ., concur. . In Lancaster v. State, 764 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), this court addressed the difference in the requirements of rule 3.800(a) motions and rule 3.850 motions, vis a vis Heggs claims. In contrast, Martino v. State, 759 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), this court, basically without discussing why, considered a Heggs issue in a rule 3.800(a) motion. The second district also did so in Higbee v. State, 762 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), by relying upon Martino. The problem is that while certain claims may be sufficiently raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion, other claims, such as those involving pleas, are much better addressed in rule 3.850 motions. As Lancaster points out, rule 3.850, rather than rule 3.800(a), is the proper vehicle for raising a claim in the post-conviction context when disputed issues of fact are involved. State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995). In this case, because the necessary documents are attached, this court has sufficient information to rule upon Hickman's rule 3.800(a) motion.
. See Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995)
- Miller v. Miller, 767 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Parker v. State, 767 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Lancaster v. State, 764 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Martino v. State, 759 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Higbee v. State, 762 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)