WILLIE D. MCCUNE, 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 affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion because the appellant did not present a facially sufficient claim.
The appellant challenged the legality of consecutive sentences imposed as a prison releasee reoffender, arguing both offenses occurred in a single cri…
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 Facially Sufficient Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Willie McCune challenges the order of the trial court summarily denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). McCune raised four grounds for relief in his motion. We affirm the order of the trial court and discuss only one of McCune’s claims.
In the first ground of his motion, McCune alleged that his consecutive sentences as a prison releasee reoffender were illegal where both offenses occurred in a single criminal episode. The trial court denied this claim, stating only that McCune was confusing the prison releasee reoffender statute with the habitual offender statute.
This court has held that a defendant cannot be sentenced to consecutive prison releasee reoffender sentences where the offenses were part of a single criminal episode. See Smith v. State, 824 So. 2d 263, 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). However, McCune did not present a facially sufficient claim since he did not allege that the claim could be determined from the face of the record. See id. We therefore affirm the order of the trial court without prejudice to any right McCune may have to raise this claim in a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion or a timely, facially sufficient motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Affirmed.
CASANUEVA and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hosea T. Blackwell v. State, 65 So. 3d 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…10 claim as successive based on the 2009 rule 3.800(a) motion and order. However, Blackwell’s claim is facially insufficient because he does not allege that the issue of the victim’s age is apparent from the face of the record. See McCune v. State, 831 So. 2d 248, 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that because appellant did not allege that claim could be determined from the face of the record, it was facially insufficient under rule 3.800(a)). And although Blackwell claims that the victim testified regarding h…
-
Powell v. State, 841 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…ever, he does not explain the enhancement or the two punishments to which he refers nor does he allege that his entitlement to relief can be determined from the face of the record. Therefore, this claim is facially insufficient. See McCune v. State, 831 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); see also Harris v. State, 801 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (affirming the denial of a rule 3.800(a) claim where the defendant did not state a factual basis for the claim). As to this claim, we affirm without prejudice to any rig…
-
Johnson v. State, 957 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…PER CURIAM. We affirm the trial court’s order, without prejudice, to any right Tony Johnson may have to raise this claim in a facially sufficient motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). See McCune v. State, 831 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 824 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)