ANTHONY HARRIS, JR., 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.
Anthony Harris Jr. challenged an order denying his motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), claiming his consecutive habitual violent felony offender sentences violate Hale v. State. The appellate court affirmed the denial but without prejudice, clarifying that Harris must rely on non-hearsay trial record documents rather than the charging document to establish that his offenses constituted a single criminal episode.
A defendant may raise a Hale claim under Rule 3.800(a), but the claim must be facially sufficient and rely only on non-hearsay portions of the trial record (such as trial transcripts), not on hearsay documentation like charging documents or police reports. Harris's claim was again facially insufficient because he relied on the charging document rather than identifying specific non-hearsay record documents.
[1] A motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) may be used to challenge consecutive habitual violent felony offender sentenc…
[2] A Hale claim challenging consecutive habitual violent felony offender sentences is facially insufficient if it fails to allege that the crimes occurred in a single crimin…
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“in 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 determine a 3.800(a) Hale claim. The trial court may rely on any portion of the trial record that is not hearsay, such as a trial transcript.”
Establishes the evidentiary standard for Rule 3.800(a) Hale claims—only non-hearsay trial record materials may be used.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarris was convicted after jury trial of second-degree murder, robbery, and grand theft auto. He was sentenced consecutively on each count as a habitu…
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.
Anthony Harris, Jr., challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Harris raised three grounds for relief in his motion. In affirming the order of the trial court, we find it necessary to discuss only one of the grounds raised in the motion.
Harris was convicted, after jury trial, of second-degree murder, robbery, and grand theft auto. He was sentenced consecutively on each count as a habitual violent felony offender. In his 3.800(a) motion, Harris alleged that his consecutive habitual violent felony offender sentences are illegal because they are in violation of Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993). The trial court denied this claim finding that it can only be raised pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court is incorrect.
Harris raised a Hale claim in a prior rule 3.800(a) motion. See Harris v. State, 845 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). This court held that the claim was facially insufficient because Harris did not allege that his crimes occurred in “a single criminal episode or that his claim can be determined without resort to extra-record facts.” 845 So. 2d at 250. We affirmed the denial of the claim without prejudice to any right Harris might have to file a facially sufficient Hale claim under rule 3.800(a). The trial court had the benefit of this court’s opinion in Harris when it found that a Hale claim could not be raised pursuant to rule 3.800(a). In fact, Harris filed his present motion in response to our prior opinion.
In his present motion, Harris 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 determine a 3.800(a) Hale claim. The trial court may rely on any portion of the trial record that is not hearsay, such as a trial transcript.
The charging document clearly is not an evidentiary portion of the trial record. Thus, Harris has again presented a facially insufficient claim. Harris appealed the original judgment and sentences. There should therefore be a transcript of the trial testimony available to the trial court.
We affirm that portion of the trial court’s order denying Harris’s Hale claim. However, our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Harris might have to file a facially sufficient claim in which he alleges that his habitual violent felony offender sentences were consecutively imposed when they were part of a single criminal episode and in which he identifies with particularity the nonhearsay record documents, such as the trial transcript, upon which he relies in seeking a determination of his claim.
Affirmed.
WHATLEY, CASANUEVA, and CANADY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carroll Lauramore v. State, 949 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…to relief. See Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Appellant’s motion is facially insufficient, as he alleges neither how nor where the record demonstrates that his crimes arose from a single criminal episode. See Harris v. State, 875 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that in the context of a Hale claim, the appellant must identify with particularity the non-hearsay record documents demonstrating that his crimes arose from a single criminal episode); Jackson, 803 So. 2d at 845 (holding…
-
Theophile v. State, 967 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…ormation that is not subject to cross examination. See Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137, 142 (Fla.2002) (affirming that a Hale claim is not cognizable under rule 3.800 when based on hearsay information contained in a police report); Harris v. State, 875 So. 2d 735, 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that a facially sufficient claim of Hale violation cannot be established by charging document or “extra-record” facts). We recognize that in Valdes v. State, this court held that it can consider a claimed Hale viola…
-
Speas v. State, 887 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)….” To establish a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) claim that his habitual offender sentences were imposed in violation of Hale, a defendant must identify with particularity the nonhearsay record documents upon which he relies. See Harris v. State, 875 So. 2d 735, 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). The police arrest affidavit is not a nonhearsay document; neither is the factual basis for the offenses which is provided at the time of the plea by the prosecutor to determine the accuracy of the plea and thereby enable the…
Previewing 3 of 9 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)
- Harris v. State, 845 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Ponce Cato v. State, 845 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Wachter v. State, 868 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)