ERIC S. WALLEN, 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 a motion to correct an illegal sentence, if facially sufficient, requires the trial court to attach record support for denial or grant the requested relief.
[1] A trial court must attach record support when denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence if the motion is facially sufficient.
[2] A defendant's claim that a sentence exceeds the statutory maximum due to improper reclassification of an offense is cognizable in a motion to correct an illegal sentence.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing his sentence exceeded statutory maximums due to improp…
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) Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
MONACO, J.
Eric S. Wallen appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. Because the motion was facially sufficient, and the trial court failed to attach record support for the denial, we conclude that a reversal is necessary.
Mr. Wallen entered into a plea agreement to six counts charging a variety of crimes. He argues that a fifteen (15) year sentence imposed for aggravated assault while armed with a firearm exceeds the statutory maximum for a third degree felony, and that the reclassification of this offense to a second degree felony because of the use of a firearm was improper. He argues, as well, that the reclassification of the second degree felony of aggravated battery with a firearm was likewise improper for the same reason. He asserts that these reclassifications were inappro priate because use of a firearm was an essential element of each crime. The trial court denied his motion without any supporting attachments, finding that the claims were successive, and that the sentences were the result of a plea and were lawful. The order does not elaborate on the basis for these holdings, and a review of Mr. Wallen’s prior appellate history reveals only two appeals, both of which were related to denials of Rule 3.850 motions on different grounds than are raised here. The motion is sufficient enough, however, to require the attachment of parts of the record to refute Mr. Wallen’s claims. See Gause v. State, 739 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); cf., Smith v. State, 729 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
In response, the State properly acknowledges that the order is insufficient because the trial court failed to attach portions of the record to refute the defendant’s claims. See Martin v. State, 799 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court either to attach portions of the record to support denial of the motion or to grant the relief requested.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GRIFFIN and TORPY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Petscher v. State, 936 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…ation why it denied the defendant's motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to rule 3.800, reversal of the order is necessary because the trial court failed to attach portions of the record refuting the defendant’s claim); Wallen v. State, 860 So. 2d 1054, 1054 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) ("Eric S. Wallen appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. Because the motion was facially sufficient, and the trial court failed to attach record support for the denial, we conc…
-
Elma v. State, 895 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…udice,” attach documentation that refutes the defendant’s claim, or provide the defendant with the twenty-four (24) additional days credit for time served in case no. 00-41144. See Davis v. State, 869 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Wallen v. State, 860 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Bohler v. State, 747 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).…
-
Stewart v. State, 920 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…r the order denying relief to its order. Although a trial court should deny a successive 3.800(a) motion, the trial court is required to attach the relevant portions of the record which demonstrate that the motion is successive. See Wallen v. State, 860 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). [*1248] Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand this matter to the trial court with instructions to attach the appropriate documentation to show that defendant’s motion is successive. REVERSED and REMANDED.…
Authorities Cited
- Rydell Delarion Hopkins v. State, 799 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Delbert Martin v. State, 799 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Donnie Smith v. State, 729 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Gause v. State, 739 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)