WILLIAM WACHTER, 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.
William Wachter appeals the trial court's denial of his postconviction motions challenging consecutive habitual offender sentences. The court affirms but clarifies that to present a facially sufficient claim under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), a movant must identify with particularity the record documents supporting the claim.
A movant challenging consecutive habitual offender sentences under rule 3.800(a) must not only allege that the claim is determinable from the face of the record but must also identify with particularity the specific record documents upon which he relies. Failure to identify these documents renders the claim facially insufficient.
[1] A claim that consecutive habitual offender sentences were illegally imposed for offenses arising out of a single criminal episode is cognizable under Florida Rule of Crim…
[2] To present a facially sufficient claim under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) alleging illegal consecutive habitual offender sentences for offenses arising fro…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A claim that a trial court imposed consecutive habitual offender sentences in violation of Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), is a cognizable rule 3.800(a) claim 'if the determination of whether the offenses were part of the same criminal episode can be made without resorting to extra-record facts.'”
Establishes the foundational rule for cognizable Hale claims under rule 3.800(a)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWachter was convicted and sentenced to consecutive habitual offender sentences in case number 91-1530 for offenses arising from a single criminal epis…
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 Trial Transcript cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
William Wachter challenges the order of the trial court denying his postconviction motions filed pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) and 3.850. We affirm without prejudice to any right Wachter might have to file a facially sufficient claim pursuant to rule 3.800(a) alleging that the trial court, in case number 91-1530, illegally imposed consecutive habitual offender sentences for offenses that arose out of a single criminal episode.
A claim that a trial court imposed consecutive habitual offender sentences in violation of Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), is a cognizable rule 3.800(a) claim “if the determination of whether the offenses were part of the same criminal episode can be made without resorting to extra-record facts.” West v. State, 825 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). This court has held that to present a facially sufficient 3.800(a) Hale claim, the mov-ant must allege that the claim can be determined from the face of the record. See Watson v. State, 828 So. 2d 1054, 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). However, in Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137, 141 (Fla.2002), the supreme court held that a trial court cannot rely on hearsay documentation that is contained in the trial court record, such as a police report, to determine a 3.800(a) Hale claim. The trial court may rely on any portion of the trial court record that is not hearsay, such as a trial transcript. See Burgess, 831 So. 2d at 142; Downs v. State, 870 So. 2d 46, 46 n.1, 2003 WL 22316799 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct.10, 2003).
Thus, in light of Burgess, we conclude that a movant who files a 3.800(a) claim that his consecutive habitual offender sentences are in violation of Hale must not only allege that the claim is determinable from the face of the record, but must identify with particularity the record documents upon which he relies in seeking a determination of the claim. If the movant fails to do so, his claim will be considered facially insufficient. Because Wachter did not identify the record documents from which his claim could be determined, we affirm the order of the trial court without prejudice to any right he might have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) Hale claim in accordance with the principles outlined in this opinion.
Affirmed.
WHATLEY, CASANUEVA, and SILBERMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. State, 875 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…s alleged that the offenses occurred in a single criminal episode and that this could be determined from the face of the charging document. Prior to his filing this motion, Harris did not have the benefit of this court’s opinion in Wachter v. State, 868 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). In Wachter, this court stated: [I]n Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137, 141 (Fla.2002), the supreme court held that a trial court cannot rely on hearsay documentation contained in the trial record, such as a police report, to dete…
-
Clay v. State, 889 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…ppellant filing in the trial court a facially sufficient Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion that identifies specific non-hearsay, record evidence that supports his claim. Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137 (Fla.2002); Wachter v. State, 868 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Appellant may raise the alleged violation of Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), in a rule 3.850 motion [*986] if he can establish a valid exception to the two-year time limitation. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). FARMER, C.J.,…
-
Louismeme v. State, 932 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…ADY, JJ., Concur. . Hearsay documentation contained in the trial court record, such as a police report, can [*360] not conclusively refute a defendant’s claim. See Carpenter v. State, 884 So. 2d 385, 387 n. 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Wachter v. State, 868 So. 2d 629, 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2002)
- Daniels v. State, 825 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- West v. State, 825 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Ellis D. Downs v. State, 870 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Alton Jackson v. State, 828 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Watson v. State, 828 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)