DEBRA SMITH A/K/A NATALIE WOODS, 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.
Appellant Smith challenged her 72-month armed burglary sentence as illegal under a Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence, arguing the trial court improperly considered legal status violation points. The Fourth District reversed and remanded, holding that while the motion was procedurally defective under Rule 3.800(a), the trial court should have treated it as a timely Rule 3.850 motion given the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Heggs v. State.
The court held that scoresheet errors involving factual inquiries are not correctable under Rule 3.800(a) motions, but must be addressed through direct appeal or Rule 3.850 motions. However, the trial court should have treated Appellant's sworn motion as a timely Rule 3.850 motion, and should consider the merits of her allegation without further delay under Rule 3.850.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle to raise factual issues not apparent from the face of the scoresheet.
[2] Sentencing errors involving factual inquiries must be corrected on direct appeal or under Rule 3.850, not Rule 3.800(a).
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“Scoresheet errors, such as the one alleged by Appellant, are correctable on direct appeal or under rule 3.850, but not on a motion to correct an illegal sentence.”
Establishes that Rule 3.800(a) motions are limited to illegal sentences apparent from the scoresheet, while factual sentencing errors require direct appeal or Rule 3.850 relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of armed burglary of a dwelling in May 1996 and sentenced to 72 months imprisonment. She did not appeal her conviction. After …
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 Unauthorized Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We review the order denying Appellant’s Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.
Appellant was convicted of armed burglary of a dwelling in May of 1996 and the trial court sentenced her to seventy-two months imprisonment. She did not appeal. After the Supreme Court decided Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000), Appellant filed a Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.800(a), wherein she alleged the trial court improperly considered points assessed against her for legal status violation when it determined that she would receive the same sentence under both the 1994 and 1995 sentencing guidelines.
Appellant’s claim that she does not qualify for legal status violation under the 1994 guidelines raised a factual issue. As such, it did not present a sentencing error which could be determined as an incorrect calculation from the face of the scoresheet. Appellant utilized a 3.800(a) motion to raise a factual issue that is not readily apparent from the scoresheet itself. Scoresheet errors, such as the one alleged by Appellant, are correctable on direct appeal or under rule 3.850, but not on a motion to correct an illegal sentence. See Blakley v. State, 746 So. 2d 1182, 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(“If there is error in any other kind of sentence, and particularly if it involves any factual inquiry, under the current decisions of our supreme court such error must be corrected in direct review or possibly under rule 3.850, but not under rule 3.800(a)”); see also Lomont v. State, 506 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
Although Appellant’s time for seeking relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 expired,1 we believe the trial court should have treated Appellant’s sworn motion as a timely-filed motion to correct an excessive, unauthorized sentence under that rule. See Matthews v. State, 664 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Jenkins v. State, 771 So. 2d 37, 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (concluding appellant should have two years from the issuance of the supreme court’s opinion in Heggs in which to file a rule 3.850 motion as the facts on which his claim is predicated could not have been known earlier). However, Appellant is scheduled to be released on June 14, 2001. We, therefore, direct the trial court to consider and determine the merits of her allegation pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 without further delay.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
WARNER, C.J., FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur. . The trial court imposed her sentence on April 25, 1997.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 898 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed without prejudice to the appellant’s filing a timely sworn rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief raising the issue of scoresheet error not apparent from the face of the scoresheet. Compare Smith v. State, 782 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Drayton v. State, 786 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Christopher v. State, 792 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). WARNER, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
-
Christopher v. State, 792 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…stopher v. State, 749 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Scoresheet errors requiring a hearing are correctable on direct appeal or pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, but not as a motion to correct an illegal sentence. Smith v. State, 782 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Appellant is warned that the filing of further collateral proceedings with respect to this issue will be deemed frivolous. Edwards v. State, 760 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). AFFIRMED. SHARP, W., and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ.,…
-
Darby Houser v. State, 901 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…not readily apparent from the face of the scoresheet. Such claims are not cognizable under rule 3.800, but rather, they are correctable on direct appeal or under rule 3.850. Drayton v. State, 786 So. 2d 1196, 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Smith v. State, 782 So. 2d 947, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Blakley v. State, 746 So. 2d 1182, 1186 (Fla. [*375] 4th DCA 1999). Although Houser filed his motion pursuant to rule 3.800, it would have been timely filed under rule 3.850; however, the motion was not properly sworn. Ac…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Blakley v. State, 746 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Lomont v. State, 506 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Jenkins v. State, 771 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Rayfield v. State, 664 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Matthews v. State, 664 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)