MARION JOHNSON, 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.
Johnson's motion to correct an illegal sentence was properly denied on the merits because he was sentenced under the habitual felony offender statute, not the invalid 1995 guidelines, though the trial court erred in denying it as successive.
A defendant sentenced under the habitual felony offender statute is not entitled to relief under Heggs even if sentenced during the period when the 1995 guidelines were invalid.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) raising a new issue may not be denied as successive or as an abuse of process, a…
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 intelligence“a motion to correct an illegal sentence raising a new issue may not be denied on these grounds”
The court explained that rule 3.800 contains no proscription against successive motions and the abuse of procedure provision in rule 3.850 is inapplicable to rule 3.800 proceedings.
Marion Johnson was sentenced on August 20, 1996, for an offense occurring during the period when the 1995 sentencing guidelines were found invalid. Jo…
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 Rule 3.800(A) Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Marion Johnson appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Johnson alleges that he was sentenced on August 20, 1996, for an offense that occurred during the period in which the 1995 guidelines have been found invalid. See Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). It is, however, clear from Johnson’s motion and the other records before this court that Johnson was not in fact sentenced under the guidelines but rather under the habitual felony offender statute.1 He is not, therefore, entitled to relief under Heggs.
We write because the trial court denied Johnson’s claim on an erroneous basis. The trial court concluded that Johnson’s claim was procedurally barred as successive and as an abuse of process because Johnson had previously filed two other postconviction motions alleging different claims of error. The law is well-settled that a motion to correct an illegal sentence raising a new issue may not be denied on these grounds. See Pnce v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that rule 3.800 contains no proscription against successive motions); Bums v. State, 637 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (holding that the abuse of procedure provision in rule 3.850 is inapplicable to rule 3.800 proceedings). Although this error would ordinari ly require reversal, we affirm because we were able to ascertain from the record before this court that Johnson is not entitled to any relief.
Affirmed.
FULMER, A.C.J., and GREEN and STRINGER, JJ„ Concur. . See § 775.084, Fla. Stat. (1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson v. State, 801 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…ments provided by the trial court. The trial court attached a copy of the judgment and sentence for case number 96-16274 which showed that Wilson was not entitled to Heggs relief because he was sentenced as a habitual offender. See Johnson v. State, 768 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The trial court’s attachments further showed that Wilson was awarded 220 days of jail time credit which is an amount equal to or greater than that he requests in his motion. We affirm Wilson’s remaining claim without comment. A…
-
Lowe v. State, 786 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…first claim, the trial court denied Heggs relief because Lowe was not sentenced under the guidelines, but rather as a habitual felony offender, and therefore, was not entitled to Heggs resentenc-ing. The trial court is correct. See Johnson v. State, 768 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We affirm as to this claim. The trial court, however, failed to address Lowe’s allegation that he was not subject to habitualization on convictions for life felonies. If Lowe was, in fact, sentenced as a habitual felony offende…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Price v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Wilson v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Burns v. State, 637 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)