WILLIAM J. CARTER, 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.
Carter appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a), claiming entitlement to relief under Heggs v. State. The appellate court affirms the trial court's denial, finding the motion successive and that Carter fails to qualify for Heggs relief because his sentence falls within the range permissible under both the 1994 and 1995 sentencing guidelines.
Carter's motion is barred as successive, and even if considered on the merits, he is not entitled to relief under Heggs because his 100.6-month sentence falls within the legally permissible range under both the 1994 and 1995 sentencing guidelines.
[1] A successive motion to correct an illegal sentence may be summarily denied.
[2] A defendant is not entitled to relief under Heggs v. …
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“Only those persons adversely affected by the amendments made by chapter 95-184 may rely on our decision here to obtain relief. Stated another way, in the sentencing guidelines context, we determine that if a person's sentence imposed under the 1995 guidelines could have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines (without a departure), then that person shall not be entitled to relief under our decision here.”
Establishes the test for Heggs relief: only those adversely affected by 1995 amendments qualify, meaning the sentence must be outside the 1994 guideline range.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarter filed three successive Rule 3.800(a) motions asserting his sentence was illegal under Heggs. The first motion was filed May 25, 2000, and amend…
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 Rule 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, C.J.
William J. Carter appeals the denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. Carter asserts that he is entitled to relief under Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). We affirm because Carter’s motion is successive, and Heggs does not entitle Carter to relief.
Carter raised this Heggs issue in two prior rule 3.800(a) motions filed with the trial court. His first motion was filed on 25 May 2000, and amended on 21 August 2002. On 5 February 2001, the trial court denied the motion on the merits, ruling Carter was not adversely affected by the 1995 amendments to the guidelines. See Heggs, 759 So. 2d at 627(“nly those persons adversely affected by the amendments made by chapter 95-184 may rely on our decision here to obtain relief. Stated another way, in the sentencing guidelines context, we determine that if a person’s sentence imposed under the 1995 guidelines could have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines (without a departure), then that person shall not be entitled to relief under our decision here.”) Carter’s second motion was filed 25 March 2001 and denied on 26 July 2001. The trial court wrote: “The issues presented in Defendant’s motion were previously ad dressed by the Court in response to Defendant’s Motion to Correct Scoresheet and Illegal Sentence, filed May 25, 2000. Carter’s claim is successive and merits no consideration by this Court. The Florida Supreme Court has held that ‘successive presentation of the same claim for relief in collateral proceedings is improper and such claims may be summarily denied.’ Francois v. State, 470 So. 2d 687, 689 (Fla.1985).’ ”
On 4 February 2002, Carter filed this Rule 3.800(a) motion and the trial court denied it on 28 February 2002, as successive. Even if Carter’s motion is considered on the merits, Carter is not entitled to relief under Heggs. Carter concedes that his recalculated sentencing range would be 72.6 to 121 months incarceration. Therefore, his sentence of 100.6 months would fall within the legally permitted range under the 1994 guidelines, and as the trial court found previously, Carter was not affected adversely by the 1995 amendments to the guidelines.
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Flavio Jose Gavino v. State, 844 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…r cases. See Gavino v. State, 827 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Gavino v. State, 693 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Francois v. State, 470 So. 2d 687 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1122, 102 S.Ct. 3511, 73 L.Ed.2d 1384 (1982); Carter v. State, 832 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).…
-
Rodriquez v. State, 853 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRM. See Carter v. State, 832 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) and Henriquez v. State, 829 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). PETERSON, THOMPSON and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Francois v. State, 470 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1985)