ROY A. GRIFFIS, 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 appellant's motion to correct an illegal sentence was not successive and should not have been summarily denied.
The appellant sought to correct an illegal sentence due to scoresheet errors, arguing his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. The trial court den…
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 Scoresheet Error 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). We reverse and remand with instructions.
The appellant claims that his sentence is illegal because of numerous scoresheet errors. His claims appear to have merit, since his 90-month sentence exceeds the statutory maximum for the third-degree felonies to which he pled. The trial court denied the motion on the basis that the appellant’s claims were successive. However, the record reveals that the appellant’s prior motion raising these claims was denied procedurally, and not on the merits. As the trial court’s prior disposition of these issues was procedural, the present motion is not successive. See Pippin v. State, 765 So. 2d 751, 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Because the appellant’s claims are apparent on the face of the record, we reverse and remand for the trial court to either address the merits of the appellant’s motion or to refute the appellant’s claims with record attachments. See State v. Mancino, 705 So. 2d 1379, 1381 (Fla.1998).
We note that the state may be entitled to withdraw from this negotiated plea and proceed to trial on the original charges. See Latiif v. State, 787 So. 2d 834, 837 (Fla.2001).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
MINER and LEWIS, JJ„ concur; BENTON, J., dissents without written opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 705 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 1998)
- Salim Kamau Latiif v. State, 787 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2001)
- Pippin v. State, 765 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)