JESSIE R. TEAGUE, 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.
Jessie Teague appeals the trial court's summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The court reverses, holding that Teague's claim that his consecutive sentences violate Hale v. State is facially sufficient and must be addressed on the merits rather than dismissed as successive.
The trial court erred in denying the motion as successive. Teague has a facially sufficient claim of an illegal sentence under Hale because the trial court's own prior determination that only two criminal episodes occurred (not four) is readily apparent from the record, making the Hale claim cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion.
[1] A claim that consecutive sentences for offenses arising from a single criminal episode are illegal may be cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) if…
[2] To raise an illegal sentence claim under Rule 3.800(a), the error must appear on the face of the record, and the motion must affirmatively allege how the court records de…
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“The trial court erroneously denied the appellant's motion as successive because it does not appear from the face of the record that the appellant's claim has ever been addressed on its merits.”
Establishes the court's key holding that the trial court erred in treating the motion as successive without addressing the substantive claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTeague was convicted on April 20, 1992 of sale and possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school (four counts total) and sentenced as a habitual…
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 Cognizable Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion as successive and the appellant has a facially sufficient claim of an illegal sentence, we reverse.
On April 20, 1992, the appellant was convicted of (1) sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, (2) possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, (3) sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, and (4) possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school and was sentenced as a habitual felony offender to consecutive terms of eight years’ imprisonment with consecutive three-year mandatory mínimums. The appellant subsequently filed a motion to correct his illegal sentence; and on September 8, 1995, the trial court entered an order finding that it was proper to run the appellant’s sentences consecutively, but it was improper for the appellant to receive mandatory minimum sentences on counts two and four because counts one and two and counts three and four were single criminal episodes. Thus, the trial court struck the mandatory minimum sentences on counts two and four. On May 24, 2001, the trial court entered an order denying the appellant’s claim that his consecutive sentences on counts one and two and his consecutive sentences on counts three and four were illegal pursuant to Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993), reasoning that the claim should have been raised in a rule 3.850 motion. On January 18, 2002, the appellant filed a second rule 3.800(a) motion again alleging that he was entitled to relief pursuant to the decision in Hale. The trial court denied this motion as successive. The appellant is now appealing the summary denial of that motion.
The trial court erroneously denied the appellant’s motion as successive because it does not appear from the face of the record that the appellant’s claim has ever been addressed on its merits. A Hale claim is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion as long as the fact that the multiple convictions arose from a single criminal episode is readily apparent from the face of the record. Valdes v. State, 765 So. 2d 774, 776 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). In the instant case, the trial court previously determined that only two criminal episodes occurred, each involving one sale and one possession of cocaine. Thus, the appellant has a facially sufficient claim that his four consecutive habitual felony offender sentences violate the decision in Hale. See Valdes.
We therefore reverse the trial court’s summary denial of the appellant’s motion and remand for the trial court to address the merits of the appellant’s claim.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., and SMITH, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thompson v. State, 987 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…1 (Fla.1993), which held that HFO sentences cannot run consecutively to each other when the offenses occur in a single criminal episode. Under State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1995), Hale can be applied retroactively. See also Teague v. State, 871 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (holding that a Hale claim is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion as long as the fact that multiple convictions arose from a single criminal episode is readily apparent from the face of the record). The trial court deleted the H…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Valdes v. State, 765 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)