ROBERT J. FLANAGAN, 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.
Robert Flanagan appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), claiming he was entitled to resentencing under Heggs v. State. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, finding the trial court failed to attach required sentencing guidelines and denied Flanagan an opportunity to respond to the State's changes to the scoresheet.
The court reversed and remanded because the trial court committed reversible error by: (1) failing to attach copies of both the 1994 and 1995 sentencing guidelines to conclusively refute Flanagan's claim; and (2) failing to give Flanagan an opportunity to respond to and contest the State's changes to the scoresheet.
[1] A trial court must attach copies of both the 1994 and 1995 sentencing guidelines to conclusively refute a defendant's claim for resentencing under Heggs v. …
[2] When the State makes changes or corrections to a sentencing scoresheet in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding, the State must advise the trial court of the changes, and the trial…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A trial court must attach copies of both the 1994 and 1995 guidelines in order to conclusively refute a defendant's claim that he should be resentenced pursuant to Heggs.”
Establishes the mandatory procedural requirement for trial courts to attach necessary guidelines when denying resentencing motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlanagan filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), alleging entitlement to resentencing u…
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 V. State Resentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Robert Flanagan appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Flanagan alleges that he is entitled to be resentenced pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). The trial court summarily denied this claim, finding that his sentence could have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines. See Heggs, 759 So. 2d at 627. For the reasons explained below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
First, we note that the trial court failed to attach a copy of the 1995 sentencing guidelines. A trial court must attach copies of both the 1994 and 1995 guidelines in order to conclusively refute a defen dant’s claim that he should be resentenced pursuant to Heggs. Howell v. State, 793 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). This error alone would require reversal in this case.
Second, we note that the State apparently made changes to the 1994 score-sheet, and the trial court relied on this scoresheet without attaching the necessary documents to support the changes. Additionally, Flanagan was never given the opportunity to respond to the changes made by the State. In Estrada v. State, 787 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), this court held that when the State makes changes or corrections to a scoresheet in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding, the State must advise the trial court of the changes, and the trial court must afford the defendant the opportunity to respond to and to contest any changes. It is also advisable for the trial court to appoint counsel to represent the defendant in such situations. Estrada, 787 So. 2d at 95.
Because of the trial court’s failure to attach the necessary documents to conclusively refute Flanagan’s claim and because of the trial court’s failure to give Flanagan the opportunity to respond to the State’s changes to the sentencing guidelines, we reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court should first determine whether it is advisable to appoint counsel to represent Flanagan. It shall then afford Flanagan an opportunity to contest the changes made by the State to the scoresheet. If the trial court determines that the changes are permissible and again denies Flanagan relief, it shall attach those portions of the record that conclusively refute his claim.
We affirm as to Flanagan’s other claims without comment except to point out that Flanagan’s claim for additional jail credit is facially insufficient because it fails to explain why he is entitled to the additional credit and how his claim is established in the records available to the trial court. See Rolon v. State, 787 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). This affirmance is without prejudice to Flanagan’s right to file a facially sufficient motion raising this claim.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shinka v. State, 807 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…e claim, noting that Shinka failed to provide any details as to what credit was being denied him. We affirm the trial court’s order because Shinka’s motion is facially insufficient. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998); Flanagan v. State, 792 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Our affirmance is without prejudice to Shinka’s right to file a facially sufficient motion. Affirmed. DAVIS and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Estrada v. State, 787 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Howell v. State, 793 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Tennell v. State, 787 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Rolon v. State, 787 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)