HAROLD DOWE, 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.
Appellate court affirmed trial court's grant of relief on one illegal sentencing claim under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) but reversed and remanded the denial of relief on a second claim, requiring the trial court to attach record portions supporting its Heggs window determination.
A trial court denying an illegal sentencing motion under Rule 3.800(a) must attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim.
[1] When denying a motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), a trial court must attach portions of the record that conclusively re…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarold Dowe filed a motion to correct illegal sentence in two trial court cases, alleging he was sentenced under an unconstitutional version of the 19…
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.
Harold Dowe challenges the order of the trial court granting in part and denying in part his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) wherein he alleged that he was sentenced under an unconstitutional version of the 1995 sentencing guidelines. Dowe’s motion was directed towards two trial court cases. The trial court granted Dowe relief in trial court case number 97-3409F. However, the trial court found that Dowe was not entitled to relief in trial court case number 97-14310 because the date of the offense was outside the Heggs window.1 See Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The trial court did not attach any portions of the record, such as the information, which would support this finding. We affirm the trial court’s order as regards 97-3409F but reverse and remand for further proceedings on Dowe’s claim that he was illegally sentenced in case number 97-14310. If the trial court again denies Dowe’s claim on 97-3409F, it shall attach those portions of the record that conclu sively refute the claim. See Baxter v. State, 769 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
NORTHCUTT, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and SALCINES, JJ., concur. . In his motion, Dowe alleged that the offenses in both trial court cases fell within the Heggs window.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 932 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…ithout attaching portions of the records or flies to support the denial. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for reconsideration of Jones’ motion in accordance with our decisions in Lott v. State, 865 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), and Dowe v. State, 794 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). If the postconviction court again summarily denies the motion, it must set forth its rationale and attach any relevant portions of the record which support its denial. Reversed and remanded. WALLACE and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Baxter v. State, 769 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)