ERNEST C. MURPH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Facially Insufficient Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Ernest C. Murph appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Murph claims his sentence violates double jeopardy because the enhancement of his sentence contains two punishments for one criminal episode. This claim is facially insufficient because Murph failed to explain the enhancement of his sentence and the two punishments. See Powell v. State, 841 So. 2d 580, 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (affirming the denial of a rule 3.800(a) claim where the defendant failed to explain the basis of his claim). A motion to correct illegal sentence that does not assert any facts or law to support a claim for relief is facially insufficient. Williams v. State, 773 So. 2d 1176, 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). As to this claim, we affirm without prejudice to any right Murph may have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion. We affirm the denial of Murph’s remaining claims without comment.
Affirmed.
SALCINES and VILLANTI, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
King v. State, 911 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…trict is appropriate and will provide a workable mechanism to resolve claims of erroneous sexual predator designations. Consequently, to the extent that they are inconsistent with this opinion, we recede from our prior opinions in Anderson v. State, 886 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Smeltz v. State, 818 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Jackson, 801 So. 2d 212; Coblentz, 775 So. 2d 359; State v. Colley, 744 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Wade v. State, 728 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); and Angell, 712 So. 2d…
-
Moreira v. State, 890 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…stconviction relief. He alleged that his designation as a sexual predator violated his right to due process because the statute under which he was so designated failed to provide procedural safeguards. For the reasons expressed in Anderson v. State, 886 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), we affirm. As in Anderson, our affirmance is without prejudice to Moreira’s right to pursue any available civil remedies. See Angell v. State, 712 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Canute Williams v. Atl. Sugar Ass'n, Inc., 773 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Williams v. State, 773 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Hayden v. State, 841 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Powell v. State, 841 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)