AUSTIN SHANE SPEAS, 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.
Appellant Speas challenged the trial court's denial of his motion alleging that consecutive habitual offender sentences violated Hale v. State by being imposed for offenses committed in a single criminal episode. The court affirmed the denial but found the motion facially insufficient under Rule 3.800(a) because Speas failed to identify particular nonhearsay record documents supporting his claim.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion because Speas failed to identify particular nonhearsay record documents with specificity as required by Harris v. State. The court held that police arrest affidavits and prosecutorial statements establishing factual basis constitute hearsay and cannot support a facially sufficient Rule 3.800(a) claim.
[1] A defendant seeking to establish a facially sufficient claim that habitual offender sentences were imposed in violation of Hale v. …
[2] A police arrest affidavit is not a nonhearsay document for the purpose of establishing a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) claim.
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“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.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for facial sufficiency of Rule 3.800(a) motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSpeas was sentenced to consecutive habitual offender sentences—prison on one count followed by probation on another count. In his Rule 3.800(a) motion…
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 Witness Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Austin Shane Speas challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the order of the trial court without prejudice to any right Speas may have to file a facially sufficient motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a).
In his motion, Speas alleged that the trial court, in violation of Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), imposed consecutive habitual offender sentences for offenses that were committed in a single criminal episode. Speas alleged that his claim could be determined from the face of the record, more specifically from the “police arrest affidavit, witness statements, and the factual basis established by the State.” 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 trial court to ensure that the facts of the case fit the offense or offenses with which the defendant is charged. See Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267, 271 (Fla.1975).
In establishing a factual basis, the prosecutor is reporting facts obtained from the witnesses to the offense, and thus the prosecutor’s statements constitute hearsay. See Neal v. State, 697 So. 2d 903, 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that the prosecutor’s reporting of facts developed by a third party constitutes hearsay). “Witness statements” may or may not constitute nonhearsay portions of the record.
However, Speas has not identified those statements or where they are to be found in the record. Speas has, therefore, not established a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) Hale claim.
The trial court denied Speas’ 3.800(a) motion for the wrong reason. The sentencing court had imposed consecutive habitual offender sentences of prison on one count followed by probation on another count. Based on this court’s holding in Brudie v. State, 467 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), the trial court denied Speas’ rule 3.800(a) Hale claim on the ground that it would have been reversible error for the sentencing court to impose concurrent terms of prison and probation. Regardless of the holding of Brudie, the supreme court held in Hale that a trial court may not impose consecutive habitual offender sentences for offenses that occurred in a single criminal episode. Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Speas might have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion.
Affirmed.
SALCINES, VILLANTI, and WALLACE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. State, 969 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…iolation, the defendant must identify with particularity the non-hearsay record documents that support his claim. See, e.g., Lauramore v. State, 949 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Jones v. State, 894 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Speas v. State, 887 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). We adopt this pleading standard. We believe that this standard will discourage defendants from filing obviously frivolous motions and will ensure that busy trial judges do not have to pick through sometimes lengthy records to det…
-
Jones v. State, 894 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…rting the claim of a violation of Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993). See Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137 (Fla.2002); Brown v. State, 806 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Nelson v. State, 855 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Speas v. State, 887 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). FARMER, C.J., POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
-
Swanson v. State, 98 So. 3d 194 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…. However, such a standard places an undue burden on defendants. A defendant is not required to cite exact page numbers; he or she must only “identify with particularity the nonhearsay record documents upon which he [or she] relies.” Speas v. State, 887 So. 2d 416, 418 (Fla. 2d DCA2004). In the alternative argument in its response, the State conceded that Swanson’s consecutive sentences are illegal under the principles announced in Hale. However, the State’s suggested remedy for the illegality is different f…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1975)
- Neal v. State, 697 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Harris v. State, 875 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Brudie v. State, 467 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)