GEMA HARTMAN, 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 sentence is illegal because the beginning date of her offense fell within the window period for raising a Heggs challenge.
The defendant appealed an order denying her motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing it was based on Heggs v. State. The trial court denied the …
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 Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Gema Hartman (defendant) appeals from an order denying her motion to correct illegal sentence. She contends that her sentence is illegal upon the authority of Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The trial court denied the defendant’s motion on the basis that she committed the crime of grand theft in the first degree on May 12, 1998, which was outside the window period for raising a Heggs challenge. See Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2000)(window period for challenging the sentencing guidelines provisions amended in chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, opened on October 1, 1995 and closed on May 24, 1997). However, the information in this case charged that the offense occurred “on or between November 1,1995 and July 15, 1998.” During trial, the prosecution orally amended the information to allege that the offense was committed on or between May 1, 1996 and June 1, 1998.
Section 921.001(4)(b)3., Florida Statutes (1995), provides that “[flelonies ... with continuing dates of enterprise shall be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines in effect on the beginning date of the criminal activity.” (Emphasis added). See also Hankin v. State, 682 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). On appeal, the state correctly concedes that the beginning date of the defendant’s offense fell within the applicable window period for raising a Heggs challenge. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying defendant’s motion to correct illegal sentence and remand to the trial court for consideration as to whether the defendant is entitled to be resen-teneed.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DeMONIA v. State, 806 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…(Fla.2000). The fact that a portion of DeMonia's continuing offense fell outside of the window period is not fatal to Heggs review, however, since the beginning date of the offense did fall within the applicable window period. See Hartman v. State, 773 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)
- Hankin v. State, 682 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)