CHARLES E. POWELL, 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.
Charles Powell appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Powell argued his sentence as a prison releasee reoffender was illegal and violated double jeopardy, but both claims were facially insufficient.
Both of Powell's claims were facially insufficient. Powell failed to allege he was affected by the amendments to the prison releasee reoffender statute, and he failed to explain or adequately allege the double jeopardy violation regarding the alleged enhancement.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) is facially insufficient if the defendant does not allege how the challenged statutory amendments affected the…
[2] A claim that a sentence violates double jeopardy is facially insufficient if the defendant fails to explain the alleged enhancement and punishments or demonstrate that re…
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“Since Powell has not alleged that he was affected by the amendments to the prison releasee reoffender statute, this claim is facially insufficient.”
Establishes that to challenge a sentence under Taylor, the defendant must allege actual effect from the unconstitutional amendments.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePowell was sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender. He filed a motion to correct his sentence arguing it was illegal based on Taylor v. State, which…
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 Insufficient Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
[*581] STRINGER, Judge.
Charles E. Powell appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Powell argues that his sentence as a prison releasee reoffen-der is illegal based on Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), review dismissed, 821 So. 2d 302 (Fla.2002), which held that chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, was unconstitutional because it was enacted in violation of the single subject rule. Chapter 99-188 broadened the definition of a prison releasee reoffender to include a defendant who commits a fisted offense while serving a prison sentence or while on escape status. See Ch. 99-188, § 2, at 1041, Laws of Fla. Since Powell has not alleged that he was affected by the amendments to the prison releasee reoffender statute, this claim is facially insufficient. See Lindsey v. State, 839 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); McCarthy v. State, 835 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Cubby v. State, 835 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Accordingly, we affirm as to this issue.
Powell also claims that his sentence violates double jeopardy because the enhancement of his sentence contains two punishments for one criminal episode. However, 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 right Powell may have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion or a timely, facially sufficient motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Affirmed.
COVINGTON and KELLY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murph v. State, 886 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ble jeopardy because the enhancement of his sentence contains two punishments for one criminal episode. This claim is facially insufficient because Murph failed to explain the enhancement of his sentence and the two punishments. See Powell v. State, 841 So. 2d 580, 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (affirming the denial of a rule 3.800(a) claim where the defendant failed to explain the basis of his claim). A motion to correct illegal sentence that does not assert any facts or law to support a claim for relief is faciall…
Authorities Cited
- Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Harris v. State, 801 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- McCUNE v. State, 831 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Hill v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 835 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Lindsey v. State, 839 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Demeatrice Cubby v. State, 835 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)