DARRELL RUTHERFORD, 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 a trial court must address a defendant's claim that predicate offenses for habitual violent felony offender status lacked sequential convictions, or attach record documents refuting the claim.
Darrell Rutherford pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm and received enhanced sentences as a habitual violent felony offender. He filed a motion t…
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 Sequential Conviction Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Darrell Rutherford appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse because the trial court failed to address Rutherford’s claim that the predicate offenses used to qualify him as a habitual violent felony offender did not satisfy the sequential convictions requirement of section 775.084(5), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996).
Rutherford entered a negotiated plea to two counts of robbery with a firearm in exchange for concurrent sentences-of twenty-five years in prison as a habitual violent felony offender. In his motion, Rutherford alleged that the predicate convictions used to enhance his sentences were all entered on the same date pursuant to a single plea agreement. .If Rutherford’s claim is correct, he is entitled .to relief because his sentences would be illegal. See Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246, 1250 (Fla.2001) (finding habitual offender sentence which lacks requisite sequential felony convictions is an illegal sentence that can be corrected pursuant to rule 3.800(a)). The trial court, however, failed to address Rutherford’s claim or to attach record documents that refute it.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. If the trial court again concludes that summary denial is proper, it must set forth its rationale and attach any relevant portions of the record that conclusively show relief is not required.
We affirm Rutherford’s remaining claims without comment.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
GREEN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Darian Williams v. State, 898 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…es that he does not qualify as a habitual violent felony offender (“HVFO”) because all of his prior felony adjudications were felonies for which he was sentenced on the same day.- He argues that under a Second District decision, Rutherford v. State, 820 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), his prior felonies had to be sentenced on two or more different days in order to qualify him for HVFO sentencing. The Rutherford decision is apparently wrongly decided. As the Second District has explained in another of its dec…
-
Ponton v. State, 73 So. 3d 70 (Fla. 2011)…eview of the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Ponton v. State, 16 So. 3d 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in Rutherford v. State, 820 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), as it relates to whether the trial court can designate a defendant as a habitual violent felony offender based on prior convictions that were entered on the same day. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Sect…1 / 2
-
Ponton v. State, 16 So. 3d 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…e affirm as to the consecutive sentences as a habitual violent felony offender (HVFO) on counts fifteen and sixteen on authority of Spratling v. State, 672 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). In point three, the defendant relies on Rutherford v. State, 820 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). As to that case, we have previously explained that the Second District apparently has an internal conflict of decisions. There is no sequential conviction requirement for an adjudication as an HVFO. Williams v. State, 898 So. 2d…
Authorities Cited
- Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2001)