RANDY L. GRIMMAGE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2001-10-26
No. 2D01-2380
BLUE, C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.
802 So. 2d 360 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2001) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Topics
Facially Insufficient Motion Habitual Felony Offender Sentencing Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Facially Insufficient Motion cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
GREEN, Judge.

[*361] GREEN, Judge.

Randy L. Grimmage appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Grimmage alleged that he might not qualify to be sentenced as a habitual felony offender. The trial court denied the claim finding that it was not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. We disagree. However, we affirm because we conclude that Grim-mage’s claim is facially insufficient since he did not specifically allege that he lacked the requisite qualifying convictions to be sentenced as a habitual felony offender. See, e.g., Lee v. State, 731 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding habitual felony offender sentence is illegal when defendant lacks the required qualifying offenses). This af-firmance is without prejudice to Grim-mage’s right to file a facially sufficient motion, if he is able to do so.

We affirm Grimmage’s remaining claims without comment.

Affirmed.

BLUE, C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Jackson v. State, 803 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
    …ors were present on the face of the record, we reversed the order summarily denying relief and remanded with instructions to the trial court to determine whether the motion could be resolved on the record. Atwood, 765 So. 2d at 243; Wilson v. State, 802 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). So long as a rule 3.800(a) motion satisfies the allegation requirements of the rule, the reasoning in Atwood should apply as well to a transcript of the trial if it is available. Fla. R.App. P. 9.200(a)(1) (“Except as otherwise d…
  • Smith v. State, 824 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
    …ostconviction proceedings where he did not preserve the issue for direct appeal). Appellant alleged that his claim could be determined from the face of the record, and he, therefore, presented a cognizable rule 3.800(a) claim. See Wilson v. State, 802 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Should the trial court determine that Smith’s claim cannot be resolved without resort to extra-record facts, Sm…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw