BRUCE FILLMORE, 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 held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion to correct an illegal sentence without determining if the record supported the defendant's claim regarding predicate conviction timing.
The defendant alleged his habitual offender sentence was illegal because the predicate conviction occurred after the current offense. The trial court …
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Bruce Fillmore appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand.
Fillmore alleged that his habitual offender sentence is illegal as he did not have the requisite predicate conviction for such sentence. Fillmore challenged his predicate offense as having occurred after the commission of the crime for which the habitual offender sentence was imposed. The trial court agreed with the state that the claim failed as a matter of law in light of Perkowski v. State, 616 So. 2d 26 (Fla.1993), and denied the motion.
Perkowski pre-dated a significant change to section 775.084(5), Florida Statutes. See Ch. 93-406, § 2, Laws of Fla., at 2915 (1993) (effective June 17, 1993). The Florida Legislature, in 1993, added a section to the habitual felony offender statute which provides:
In order to be counted as a prior felony for purposes of sentencing under this section, the felony must have resulted in a conviction sentenced separately prior to the current offense and sentenced separately from any other felony conviction that is to be counted as a prior felony.
§ 775.084(5), Fla. Stat. (1993); see also Comet v. State, 791 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Carson v. State, 739 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). The change is applicable to Fillmore’s offense which occurred on June 19, 1993. Cf. Barnhill v. State, 788 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
Fillmore’s claim is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion if the error can be determined from the record. See Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246 (Fla.2001). Our record does not contain all of the documents necessary to support the dates as alleged, though the state does not dispute Fillmore’s dates as alleged, which support his claim. We reverse and remand for the trial court to determine whether the record supports Fillmore’s allegations, and if so, to resentence him accordingly.
STONE, POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2001)
- Perkowski v. State, 616 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1993)
- Barnhill v. State, 788 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Tavares M. Carson v. State, 739 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Luker v. State, 791 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Cornet v. State, 791 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)