HELEN K. TIDWELL, 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's motion to correct illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) was properly denied because her sentencing claim under Heggs v. State was facially insufficient and her double jeopardy claim was not cognizable in that procedural posture, though both may be refiled appropriately.
A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) must facially demonstrate that the sentence constitutes a departure under the applicable guidelines, and claims requiring factual development beyond the court file are not cognizable in such motions.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) must contain a facial allegation that the sentence imposed under the applicable guidelines would constitute a…
[2] Claims requiring factual development beyond the court record are not cognizable in motions to correct illegal sentences under Rule 3.800(a) and must instead be brought in…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHelen K. Tidwell received sentences for multiple convictions and filed a motion to correct illegal sentence alleging violations under Heggs v. State a…
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 Double Jeopardy Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Helen K. Tidwell appeals the summary denial of her motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). As her first claim for relief, Tidwell alleges that the sentences she received for her convictions in this case violate the holding in Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). Because she failed to state as part of the claim that the sentence she received under the 1995 guidelines would be a departure under the 1994 guidelines, the claim is facially insufficient and we affirm. See Daniels v. State, 771 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). This affirmance is without prejudice to Tidwell’s right to file a facially sufficient motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a).
In Tidwell’s second claim, she alleges that two of her convictions violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. This specific claim cannot be resolved from the court file; therefore, this claim is not cognizable in a motion filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a). See Shaw v. State, 780 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). This claim may be brought in a motion pursuant to rule 3.850. See Plowman v. State, 586 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Therefore, we affirm without prejudice to Tidwell’s right to refile this claim as a rule 3.850 motion if she is able to do so.
We affirm Tidwell’s remaining claim without comment.
Affirmed.
BLUE, C.J., and GREEN, J„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rudolf v. State, 851 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…ent in failing to assert it, the issue could have been raised on direct appeal, see Johnson v. State, 747 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), and a double jeopardy violation is likewise cognizable as a claim in a rule 3.850 motion. See Tidwell v. State, 790 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Plowman v. State, 586 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Thus, we treat Ru-dolfs claim as one asserting a double jeopardy violation as a result of the convictions for grand theft motor vehicle (count one) and grand theft (count four)…
-
McCANN v. State, 854 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…court summarily denied McCann’s claim, concluding that double jeopardy claims are not appropriate for postconviction relief. The trial court was incorrect because double jeopardy claims may be raised in a rule 3.850 proceeding. See Tidwell v. State, 790 So. 2d 1184, 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). McCann again raised this claim in his supplemental motion. He noted that in the opinion issued following his direct appeal, this court stated that it could not resolve the double jeopardy issue based upon the appellate rec…
-
Byars v. State, 805 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…iled to allege a facially sufficient claim. Daniels v. State, 771 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Our affirmance is without prejudice to any ability Byars might have to file a facially sufficient motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a). See Tidwell v. State, 790 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Affirmed. PARKER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Plowman v. State, 586 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Shaw v. State, 780 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Daniels v. State, 771 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)