CLIFTON GILL, 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.
Clifton Gill appealed a trial court's summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion. The appellate court affirmed the denial of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim but reversed and remanded the sentencing guidelines scoring claims, holding that properly pleaded Rule 3.800(a) claims must be considered even when the motion is styled as a Rule 3.850 motion.
A trial court must treat properly pleaded Rule 3.800(a) claims as if filed in a properly styled motion even when the postconviction motion is incorrectly styled under Rule 3.850. Sentencing guidelines scoring claims are cognizable in a Rule 3.850 motion under Rule 3.850(l)(a), which permits claims that a sentence was imposed in violation of Florida law.
[1] A claim that a sentencing guidelines score-sheet was improperly scored is cognizable in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) where the e…
[2] A trial court must treat a properly pleaded postconviction claim as if it had been filed in a properly styled motion, even if the movant incorrectly styles the motion.
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“Where a movant files a properly pleaded claim but incorrectly styles the postconviction motion in which it was raised, the trial court must treat the claim as if it had been filed in a properly styled motion.”
Establishes the central holding that procedural styling of a motion does not preclude consideration of substantively proper claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClifton Gill was convicted of a crime and sentenced based on sentencing guidelines scoring. Gill filed a postconviction motion styled under Florida Ru…
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 Motion Pursuant To Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, Judge.
Clifton Gill challenges the order of the trial court summarily denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the first ground of appellant’s motion but reverse the denial of the second and third grounds and remand to the trial court to consider the claims presented in those grounds.
In his first ground, Gill presented a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
We affirm, without comment, the trial court’s denial of this claim. In his second and third grounds, Gill claimed that the primary offense at conviction was improperly scored as a level nine rather than a level eight offense on the sentencing guidelines’ offense severity ranking chart. A claim that a sentencing guidelines score-sheet was improperly scored is cognizable in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) “where the error can be corrected based on the face of the record and the movant so alleges.” McCullough v. State, 805 So. 2d 86, 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
Gill’s particular claims are cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Holt v. State, 781 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). In its order, the trial court recognized that grounds two and three of Gill’s motion raised rule 3.800(a) claims that the sentence was illegal but refused to consider them because Gill’s motion was filed pursuant to rule 3.850.
The trial court was in error. Where a movant files a properly pleaded claim but incorrectly styles the postconviction motion in which it was raised, the trial court must treat the claim as if it had been filed in a properly styled motion. See Hogan v. State, 799 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that properly pleaded rule 3.850 claim should have been treated as such by trial court even though motion was styled as one to correct sentence).
Furthermore, subsection (l)(a) of rule 3.850 states that a rule 3.850 motion may raise a claim for relief that a sentence was imposed in violation of the laws of Florida.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of grounds two and three and remand for further proceedings.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
ALTENBERND and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Dellofano v. State, 946 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…line for filing a rule 3.850 motion. Because Dellofano’s motion in this case met the procedural requirements of rule 3.850, it should have been treated as such anyway. See, e.g., Reese v. State, 896 So. 2d 807, 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Gill v. State, 829 So. 2d 299, 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“Where a movant files a properly pleaded claim but incorrectly styles the postconviction motion in which it was raised, the trial court must treat the claim as if it had been filed in a properly styled motion.”). Therefore,…
-
Hunter v. State, 846 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…e 3.800(b), and the trial court treated it as such and denied it without any explanation. Because Hunter raised a claim of illegal sentence, the trial court should have considered the motion as one filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a). See Gill v. State, 829 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). In the alternative, because the motion is sworn and timely filed, the trial court could consider it under rule 3.850. Id. at 300. We note that Hunter filed an earlier rule 3.800(a) motion seeking jail credit in the present case…
-
Jontrel Curtis v. State, 197 So. 3d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…vant files a properly pleaded postconviction claim but incorrectly styles the postconvicr tion motion in which it is raised,-the post-conviction court must treat the claim as if it had been filed in an appropriately styled motion. See Gill v. State, 829 So. 2d 299, 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). To the extent the postconviction court declined to consider Mr. Curtis’s properly pleaded claim for prison credit because it was incorrectly styled, this was error. Thus, we reverse as to the court’s failure to award credit…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McCULLOUGH v. State, 805 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Hogan v. State, 799 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Holt v. State, 781 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Johnson v. State, 799 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)