CHARLES S. BURCH, 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.
Appellant challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, alleging that habitual felony offender sentences for robbery and burglary arising from a single criminal episode were unlawfully stacked consecutively in violation of Hale v. State. The court reverses and remands, finding the trial court failed to adequately address the appeal by incorporating record portions necessary to resolve the claim.
The trial court's summary denial of the Hale claim was reversed because the court failed to attach copies of record portions necessary to conclusively resolve the appellant's claims. The case was remanded with instructions that if the trial court again denies the claim, it must attach record excerpts that conclusively demonstrate the appellant is entitled to no relief.
[1] A claim that habitual felony offender sentences were improperly stacked in violation of Hale v. …
[2] A trial court must attach record excerpts that conclusively demonstrate a defendant is entitled to no relief when denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Hale claims are cognizable in rule 3.800(a) motions, so long as the allegations can be resolved from the face of the record and no extra-record facts are necessary.”
Establishes the standard for when sentencing claims can be raised in motion to correct illegal sentence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Burch received habitual felony offender sentences for robbery and burglary that the trial court imposed consecutively. Appellant argued thes…
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
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
Of the appellant’s three claims, only one merits discussion. The appellant alleges that the habitual felony offender sentences he received for robbery and burglary, both of which arose from what the appellant claims to have been a single criminal episode, were stacked consecutively in violation of the rule announced in Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. den. 513 U.S. 909, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994); rehearing den. 513 U.S. 1066, 115 S.Ct. 686, 130 L.Ed.2d 617 (1994).
Hale claims are cognizable in rule 3.800(a) motions, so long as the allegations can be resolved from the face of the record and no extra-record facts are necessary. See Valdes v. State, 765 So. 2d 774, 776 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); see also, e.g. State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998), Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246 (Fla.2001); Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173 (Fla.2001).
The appellant has directed the court to portions of the record that he claims will establish the Hale violation. See Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167, 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). The trial court has not attached copies of those record portions. We therefore reverse the trial court’s summary denial of the appellant’s Hale claim, and remand for further consideration. If the trial court again denies the appellant’s claim, it is instructed to attach record excerpts that conclusively demonstrate the appellant is entitled to no relief. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
ALLEN, C.J., ERVIN and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 2001)
- Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2001)
- 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)
- Snead v. United States, 513 U.S. 909 (U.S. 1994)
- Blanc v. United States, 513 U.S. 909 (U.S. 1994)
- In re Carter, 513 U.S. 1066 (U.S. 1994)