ELLIS D. DOWNS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Record On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case is before the court on remand from the Supreme Court of Florida, which vacated this court’s opinion and remanded for reconsideration in light of Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137 (Fla.2002). See Downs v. State, 853 So. 2d 396 (Fla.2003). We accordingly remand this cause to the trial court to reconsider Downs’ motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) on its merits in light of Burgess, 831 So. 2d 137.1 See generally Adams v. State, 755 So. 2d 678, 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding that movant may assert a Hale
claim in a rule 3.800(a) motion if the facts supporting the claim are apparent from the face of the record); Valdes v. State, 765 So. 2d 774, 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (concluding that the appellant was entitled to relief because his Hale claim was apparent from the face of the record).
Reversed and remanded.
WHATLEY, DAVIS and SILBERMAN, JJ., concur. . Downs was adjudicated guilty after a jury trial, and the transcript of the trial is part of the record.
. Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wachter v. State, 868 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…n 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…
-
Hubbard v. State, 872 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…gess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137 (Fla.2002), this court held that Mr. Hubbard’s claim must be pursued under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and not rule 3.800(a). See Hubbard v. State, 773 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); see also Downs v. State, 870 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Following the supreme court’s opinion in Burgess, which permits some Hale issues to be resolved under rule 3.800(a), Mr. Hubbard again challenged his consecutive sentences as illegal on the face of the record. This court asked…
-
Good v. State, 936 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…nsecutive HFO sentences were imposed for crimes committed in a single criminal episode and that this claim was resolvable from the face of the record without resort to any extra-record facts. Good’s motion is facially sufficient. See Downs v. State, 870 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). However, the postconviction court interpreted Good’s claim to be that “he was improperly sentenced as a Habitual Felony Offender because the offenses [prior convictions] used to habitualize him resulted from a single criminal e…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2002)
- Ellis D. Downs v. State, 853 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 2003)
- Valdes v. State, 765 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Adams v. State, 755 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)