WENDELL L. HARRIS, 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.
Harris's appeal of the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) was affirmed, but without prejudice to filing a facially sufficient motion.
A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) must affirmatively allege facts establishing the illegality, and dismissal without prejudice allows refiling with proper allegations.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) must contain affirmative allegations of fact establishing the illegality rather than mere legal conclusions.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarris filed a motion to correct his minimum mandatory sentence, arguing it was illegal under Taylor v. State, but did not affirmatively allege that h…
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
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Wendall L. Harris appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Harris argued that his minimum mandatory sentence is illegal based on Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The circuit court dismissed the claim because Harris did not affirmatively allege that he committed the offense within the window created by Taylor. We affirm the dismissal of this claim without prejudice to any right Harris may have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion. See Sims v. State, 838 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
Harris also alleged that he is entitled to additional jail credit. We affirm the circuit court’s denial of this claim because the record indicates that he is not entitled to the credit. Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Harris may have to challenge the accuracy of the circuit court records or the effectiveness of his trial counsel by filing a timely, facially sufficient motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Collins v. State, 819 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Blake v. State, 807 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
Affirmed.
COVINGTON and WALLACE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Blake v. State, 807 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Orosco v. State, 838 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Edrick Lee Hines v. State, 838 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- State v. Fernandez, 819 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Brown v. State, 819 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)