CEDRICK HENDERSON, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion to correct an illegal sentence without reconsideration.
Appellant sought to correct an illegal sentence, arguing it exceeded sentencing guidelines due to a challenge to the 1995 guidelines under Heggs v. St…
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 Constitutional Challenge To Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Cedrick Henderson, appeals from an order summarily denying his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Henderson alleged that he was sentenced to nine years in prison as a habitual felony offender pursuant to a negotiated plea to receive a habitual offender sentence within his sentencing guidelines range of 66 to 110 months. Appellant sought to be resentenced pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000) (sustaining a constitutional challenge to the 1995 sentencing guidelines, enacted by chapter 95-184, based on violation of the single subject rule), alleging that his sentence exceeds the guidelines range which would be produced by the 1994 sentencing guidelines.
The State concedes that the order denying Appellant’s sworn motion should be reversed for the trial court to reconsider it pursuant to rule 3.850. We agree and reverse.
If on remand the trial court determines that Appellant is entitled to relief under Heggs, then the State must be given the option of proceeding to trial on the original charges or having Appellant resentenced under the 1994 sentencing guidelines. See Jones v. State, 781 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Vareta v. State, 777 So. 2d 1168(Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (on motion for clarification); Buckingham v. State, 771 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Spacco v. State, 762 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
DELL, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Buckingham v. State, 771 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Rashan Jones v. State, 781 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Vareia v. State, 777 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Duc M. Pham v. State, 762 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Spacco v. State, 762 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)