CHARLES JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL W. MOORE, 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.
The court reversed the denial of habeas corpus petition insofar as it failed to address a Hale claim regarding consecutive sentences, remanding for the trial court to determine whether the record supports the claim that five consecutive habitual felony offender life sentences were imposed for crimes not occurring in separate episodes.
A habeas corpus petition alleging that consecutive habitual felony offender sentences were imposed for crimes not occurring in separate episodes states a cognizable claim under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) when the claim is apparent from the face of the record.
[1] A claim that consecutive habitual felony offender sentences were imposed for crimes not occurring in separate episodes is cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Proced…
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 intelligence“A rule 3.800 motion can be the proper vehicle in which to raise a Hale claim ... if the issue can be resolved from the face of the entire written record.”
Explaining when a Hale claim may be raised under rule 3.800(a)
Johnson received five consecutive habitual felony offender life sentences for armed robbery and contended the crimes did not occur in five separate ep…
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 Rule 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Charles Johnson appeals an order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus without reaching the merits of his claims. We reverse the order insofar as it denies the claim asserted under Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), and remand with directions that the trial court construe the petition as a motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Otherwise, we affirm.
The petition alleges that the trial court erred in imposing five consecutive habitual felony' offender life sentences for armed robbery because the crimes did not occur in five separate episodes and further alleges that “[t]he record clearly shows this error.” See Pullins v. State, 777 So. 2d 451, 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Such a claim is cognizable under rule 3.800(a) as long as the court does not have to resort to extra-record facts. See Wilson v. State, 800 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (“A rule 3.800 motion can be the proper vehicle in which to raise a Hale claim ... if the issue can be resolved from the face of the entire written record.”); Valdes v. State, 765 So. 2d 774, 776-77 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (holding that a “defendant is entitled to relief under rule 3.800(a) [if] his Hale claim is apparent from the face of the record.”); see generally Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173 (Fla.2001). We reverse the order insofar at it denies the Hale claim, and remand for the trial court to ascertain whether the record as a whole supports the claim. We affirm otherwise.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
ERVIN, BENTON, and POLSTON, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 803 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…ptember 2000 motion was properly considered untimely filed pursuant to rule 3.850(b) and Dixon and was found to be procedurally barred on that ground. However, the appropriate inquiry under Hale and its progeny does not end there. Johnson v. Moore, 801 So. 2d 289 [*844] (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (claim, in petition for writ of habeas corpus, that “the record” would show the consecutive HFO sentences were illegal because the crimes arose from a single criminal episode should be construed as a rule 3.800(a) motion a…
-
Robinson v. State, 816 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…inal episode, the trial court may address the Hale issue pursuant to rule 3.800, which may be filed at any time. See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 803 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Turner v. State, 804 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Johnson v. Moore, 801 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). See also Crotts v. State, 795 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (rejecting application of successiveness and law-of-the-case doctrines to defendant’s challenge to an HFO sentence, because the supreme court had decided a case addres…
-
Johnson v. State, 835 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…PER CURIAM. In this appeal from a postconviction proceeding, the appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of a claim that we previously remanded to the trial court for resolution, giving specific instructions. See Johnson v. Moore, 801 So. 2d 289, 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Because the trial court did not follow the instructions that we gave, we reverse and remand. See Collins v. State, 680 So. 2d 458, 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The appellant originally filed a petition for writ of habeas corpu…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 2001)
- Valdes v. State, 765 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Mintz v. Broward Corr. Inst. & State of Fla., 800 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Wilson v. State, 800 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Tillman v. Singletary, 777 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Pullins v. State, 777 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)