HAROLD E. WALLIS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Harold Wallis seeks certiorari review of the trial court's denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. The trial court's order was styled as a motion to mitigate, but the appellate court treated it as a Rule 3.800(a) appeal and affirmed the denial of his claim that his three consecutive life sentences for capital sexual battery were illegal.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of Wallis's motion to correct an illegal sentence. The sentences are legal because Wallis was properly convicted of capital sexual battery (a felony distinct from third-degree sexual battery) and the trial court has authority to impose consecutive mandatory minimum terms for multiple convictions of capital sexual battery.
[1] A petition for writ of certiorari may be treated as a notice of appeal when the underlying motion is appealable.
[2] A handwritten notation on a form order denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence, which mischaracterizes the motion as one to mitigate, may be considered a scrivene…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“he was properly convicted of three counts of capital sexual battery, as the victim, his daughter, was 9 years old when the offenses were committed”
Establishes that the conviction was for the correct felony degree, distinguishing capital sexual battery from lesser sexual battery offenses
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWallis was convicted of three counts of capital sexual battery involving his 9-year-old daughter and received three consecutive life sentences, each w…
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 To Mitigate Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, J.
Inmate Harold E. Wallis seeks from this court a writ of certiorari, claiming that the trial court erred in its disposition of his Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. Subsequently, the trial court entered an order on September 5, 2002 denying relief to Wallis. The order is a form order and at the top is styled “Hearing Type: Mot Mitigate/Correct.” At the bottom, under the section for motions, a box for denied is x’d. Under that is written “A mot to mitigate.” Wallis in his instant petition mainly argues1 that the trial court erred in denying his Rule 3.800(a) motion by entering an order “changing a motion to correct an illegal sentence to a motion to mitigate.” The reason for Wallis’s complaint is that an order denying a motion to mitigate sentence is not appealable. Wallis’s motion remains, of course, a Rule 3.800(a) motion and the handwritten notation “A mot to mitigate” is best viewed as either a scrivener’s error or perhaps a mis-characterization. We elect to treat the petition for certiorari as a notice of appeal pursuant to the summary Rule 3.800(a) appeal. We affirm the lower court’s denial of Wallis’ motion for correction of an illegal sentence.
Wallis was convicted of three counts of capital sexual battery and received three consecutive life sentences, with each sentence carrying a minimum mandatory of 25 years. In his Rule 3.800(a) motion, he makes the argument that these sentences are illegal because sexual battery convictions involved only third degree felonies. He also appears to complain about the imposition of consecutive sentences. We note, however, that this court’s records plainly establishes that he was properly convicted of three counts of capital sexual battery, as the victim, his daughter, was 9 years old when the offenses were committed. Further, his complaint about the imposition of consecutive sentences is without merit because the trial court may order mandatory minimum terms for multiple convictions of capital sexual battery to be served concurrently or consecutively. State v. Boyd, 558 So. 2d 1025 (Fla.1990).
PETITION TREATED AS NOTICE OF APPEAL.
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA and PLEUS, JJ., concur. . Wallis also argues that the trial court should have granted his motion to transport. However, as indicated, he himself acknowledges that his presence at the hearing would not have been "mandated” by Rule 3.800(a). (Motion to Transport at 2)