TIMOTHY GAMMON, 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.
Timothy Gammon appealed the trial court's summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, challenging a three-year mandatory minimum for firearm possession in an armed robbery conviction. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court failed to conclusively refute Gammon's claim that the record affirmatively showed he did not possess a firearm during the offense.
The court held that such a claim is cognizable in a Rule 3.800(a) motion when there is an affirmative indication on the face of the record that the defendant did not possess a firearm. The trial court erred by summarily denying the motion without conclusively refuting the appellant's claim with record evidence.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is cognizable when there is an affirmative indication on the face of the record…
[2] A trial court must conclusively refute a claim that a mandatory minimum sentence lacks a factual basis by attaching portions of the record to its order.
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“Because the trial court failed to conclusively refute the appellant's claim that there was no factual basis to support the imposition of a mandatory minimum term, we reverse.”
Establishes the core holding that summary denial was improper when the trial court did not provide record evidence refuting the defendant's factual claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 19, 1990, Gammon was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment with a three-year mandatory minimum for possession of…
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 Factual Basis For Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because the trial court failed to conclusively refute the appellant’s claim that there was no factual basis to support the imposition of a mandatory minimum term, we reverse. We affirm all other issues raised in the appellant’s motion without discussion.
On June 19, 1990, the appellant was convicted of armed robbery in case number 89-0942 and was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment with a three-year mandatory minimum for the possession of a firearm. The appellant alleged in his rule 3.800(a) motion that the three-year mandatory minimum imposed in this case was illegal because the factual basis showed that the appellant did not possess the firearm used in the robbery. The appellant directed the Court’s attention to a portion of the record where the state conceded that the appellant did not possess a firearm during this offense. The trial court failed to attach any portion of the record to refute the appellant’s claim and found that the issue should have been raised on direct appeal. Because there was an affirmative indication on the face of the record that the appellant did not possess a firearm, the claim that there was not a factual basis to support the imposition of a firearm mandatory minimum is cognizable in a rule 8.800(a) motion. See Knight v. State, 763 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Valdes v. State, 765 So. 2d 774, 776 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
We therefore reverse the trial court’s summary denial of this claim and remand for further attachment of record portions conclusively refuting the appellant’s claim or for resentencing.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
BARFIELD, ALLEN and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Valdes v. State, 765 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Pelegrina v. State, 763 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)