SCOTT DANIEL PHIPPS, 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.
The court affirmed the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence regarding the enhancement of a sentence, but vacated the portion of the order ruling on a gain time claim not raised by the appellant.
[1] A claim for sentence correction under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is cognizable if the claim can be established on the face of the record.
[2] To raise an illegal sentence claim under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), a movant must affirmatively allege where and how the record demonstrates an entitlem…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant sought review of the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The motion included claims regarding sentence enhancement and a 'Hal…
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 Successive Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm that portion of the lower court’s order denying, as successive, Appellant’s claim that his sentence was not legally enhanced. We also affirm without prejudice Appellant’s claim seeking relief pursuant to Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), as he insufficiently pled this claim. We vacate that portion of the order ruling on a gain time claim not raised in Appellant’s motion.
Appellant correctly asserts that the trial court failed to address his Hale claim that his sentences should be concurrent as the offenses occurred in a single episode. “Hale claims are cognizable in rule 3.800(a) motions if the claim can be established on the face of the record.” Pullins v. State, 777 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Valdes v. State, 765 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). However, Appellant failed to allege where and how the record supports his claim that his consecutive habitual sentences were imposed for offenses occurring in a single criminal episode. See Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)(in order to raise illegal sentence claim under rule 3.800(a), appellant must affirmatively allege where and how the record demonstrates an entitlement to relief). Accordingly, although the trial court failed to address this claim, we affirm the summary denial of Appellant’s motion without prejudice to any right Appellant might have to file a facially sufficient Hale claim under rule 3.800(a).
In addition, that portion of the trial court’s order, stating that Appellant claimed he was not being awarded all the gain time he was entitled to, is vacated to the extent the order rules on this claim, as Appellant made no such claim in the instant motion. See Freeman v. Freeman, 447 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)(court’s jurisdiction can be exercised only within the scope of the pleadings).
AFFIRMED, in part; VACATED in part.
KAHN, VAN NORTWICK and LEWIS, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Canavan v. State, 842 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…hat a claim is facially insufficient if the defendant fails to allege where and how the record supports his claim that consecutive habitual offender sentences were imposed for offenses occurring in a single criminal transaction. See Phipps v. State, 806 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). The court also found that Canavan did not receive consecutive habitual offender sentences and had failed to state a facially sufficient claim under Hale. A copy of the sentence was attached to the court’s order and shows that Ca…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Williamson v. Penni Lane Williamson, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Valdes v. State, 765 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Freeman v. Freeman, 447 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Tillman v. Singletary, 777 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Pullins v. State, 777 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)