ANDRE LAMAR BROWN, 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 held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion to correct an illegal sentence, as the challenge was properly brought under rule 3.800(a) and the error was apparent on the face of the record.
Appellant challenged his habitual felony offender sentences, arguing they arose from a single criminal episode and should run concurrently. The trial …
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 Single Criminal Episode cases and more on FLexlaw
[*628] PER CURIAM.
Appellant Andre Lamar Brown appeals from an order entered in the circuit court summarily denying his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
Appellant challenges his habitual felony offender consecutive 30 year sentences on counts (1) (armed burglary of conveyance) and (2) (armed burglary of occupied conveyance) and his 30 year habitual felony offender sentence on count (4)(attempted armed robbery) consecutive to count (2). The record establishes that they all arose from a single criminal episode.
The trial court summarily denied this motion on the grounds that it was untimely under rule 3.850, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure, and that it addressed challenges previously raised in the trial court. However, appellant did not seek relief under rule 8.850, but rather under rule 3.800, which is proper for a Hale challenge, when the error is apparent on the face of the record. Valdes v. State, 765 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Further, appellant did not previously raise a Hale challenge to his sentences.
We reverse on the authority of Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521, 524 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 909, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994). See also Holsworth v. State, 796 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
We remand the case with directions that the sentences on counts 1, 2 and 4 be imposed to run concurrently.
KLEIN, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vasquez v. State, 832 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…ontact with appellate counsel, who has nevertheless proceeded as if an appeal were so desired. Where a defendant absconds and fails to return before the appellate process begins, the appropriate measure is to dismiss the appeal. See Abed v. State, 806 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Defense counsel’s reliance on Griffis v. State, 759 So. 2d 668 (Fla.2000), is misplaced, as that case specifically concerns the situation where a defendant absconds but returns before filing an appeal. Abed at 627. Because Vasqu…
-
Jones v. State, 894 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…rial court through a rule 3.800(a) motion that specifically identifies non-hearsay, record evidence supporting the claim of a violation of Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993). See Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137 (Fla.2002); Brown v. State, 806 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Nelson v. State, 855 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Speas v. State, 887 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). FARMER, C.J., POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Valdes v. State, 765 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Snead v. United States, 513 U.S. 909 (U.S. 1994)
- Blanc v. United States, 513 U.S. 909 (U.S. 1994)
- Phillips v. State, 796 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)