MONDRELL GEORGE, 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.
Mondrell George challenged the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), arguing he was sentenced under an unconstitutional version of the 1995 sentencing guidelines. The court reversed and remanded, finding that while the trial court's reasoning was correct, it failed to attach record portions that conclusively refuted George's facially sufficient claim.
The court held that while the trial court's reasoning was correct in determining George was sentenced as a habitual offender, the trial court erred in not attaching portions of the record such as the judgment and written sentence that conclusively refute George's facially sufficient claim.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence is facially sufficient if it states a claim that, if true, would entitle the movant to relief.
[2] Sentencing guidelines do not apply to a defendant sentenced as a habitual offender.
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“However, because George stated a facially sufficient claim, the trial court erred in not attaching those portions of the record — such as the judgment and written sentence — that conclusively refute George's claim.”
Establishes the core holding that procedural defect exists when trial court denies motion without attaching refuting record portions, even if the claim itself lacks merit.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence claiming he was sentenced under an unconstitutional version of the 1995 sentencing guidelines and…
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 Heggs Window cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mondrell George challenges the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
In his motion, George alleged that he was sentenced under an unconstitutional version of the 1995 sentencing guidelines and that the sentence imposed was a departure under the 1994 sentencing guidelines. The trial court summarily denied the motion, and in George v. State, 760 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), we reversed the order of the trial court and remanded for the trial court to determine whether George committed his offenses within the Heggs window.1 The trial court correctly determined that the offenses were within the Heggs window; however, the trial court again denied George’s motion, finding that George was sentenced as a habitual offender and that the sentencing guidelines did not apply. The trial court was correct in its reasoning. See Gibson v. State, 775 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). However, because George stated a facially sufficient claim,2 the trial court erred in not attaching those portions of the rec- ' ord — such as the judgment and written sentence — that conclusively refute George’s claim. See Baxter v. State, 769 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
We reverse the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings. If the trial court again denies George’s claim, it shall attach those portions of the record necessary to support its order. See id.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
FULMER, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and CASANUEVA, JJ„ concur. . See Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
. See Daniels v. State, 771 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Daniels v. State, 771 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Johnson v. State, 760 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Baxter v. State, 769 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Gibson v. State, 775 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)