GREG BAXTER, 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 reversed denial of Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging sentence under 1995 guidelines and habitual offender predicate, requiring trial court to attach record documents supporting any future denial.
A trial court must attach record documents to its order when denying a Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging sentencing guidelines constitutionality or predicate offense qualification.
[1] A trial court must attach portions of the record to its order when denying a Rule 3.800(a) motion raising cognizable claims regarding sentencing guidelines constitutional…
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 intelligenceBaxter appealed a trial court order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing the 1995 sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional an…
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 Constitutionality Of Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Greg Baxter appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In support of his motion, Baxter argues both that the 1995 sentencing guidelines are unconstitutional and that the court improperly used out-of-state convictions as a basis for imposing a habitual offender sentence. The trial court, without including any attachments to its order, denied Baxter’s claims. We reverse.
A challenge to a sentence imposed under the 1995 sentencing guidelines during the window of unconstitutionality is a legitimate issue to raise by rule 3.800(a) motion. See Brown v. State, 662 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Additionally, challenges questioning whether a predicate offense giving rise to habitualization is properly qualifying can be raised by rule 3.800(a) motion. See White v. State, 666 So. 2d 895 (Fla.1996). As Baxter stated cognizable claims, it was error for the trial court to deny the motion without attaching portions of the record which conclusively refute his claims. See Ducharme v. State, 690 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Accordingly, we remand the matter for further consideration by the trial court. If the court enters an order declaring that resentencing is unnecessary for Baxter, it should attach to its order the record documents used to justify that conclusion. See Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
BLUE, A.C.J., and STRINGER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Howell v. State, 793 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…994 or the 1995 sentencing guidelines scoresheets. Because Howell stated a cognizable claim, it was error for the trial court to deny the motion without attaching those portions of the record which conclusively refute the claim. See Baxter v. State, 769 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings. If the trial court again denies Howell’s claim, it shall attach those portions of the record which conclusively refute the claim. Revers…
-
Hollingsworth v. State, 802 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…y in a building is not a qualified offense for purposes of the habitual offender statute. A claim that a predicate offense does not qualify a defendant to be sentenced as a habitual offender is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. Baxter v. State, 769 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand for resentencing on Hollingsworth’s habitual offender sentences.1 At the new sentencing hearing, the State may attempt to properly qualify Hollingsworth as a habitua…
-
Bozarth v. State, 789 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Bo-zarth claimed that he did not have the requisite predicate conviction to be sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender. Such a claim is cognizable in a 3.800(a) motion. See Baxter v. State, 769 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). However, because Bozarth’s sworn motion requires consideration of extra-record material, we treat it as filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Fenter v. State, 632 So. 2d 685, 686, n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- White v. State, 666 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1996)
- Ducharme v. State, 690 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Brown v. State, 662 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)