GILBERTO LOPEZ, 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.
The court held that a motion to correct an illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) is not subject to time limits and that a Heggs claim is cognizable if the error is apparent on the face of the record.
Appellant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, alleging he was sentenced under unconstitutional guidelines and is entitled to resentencing u…
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 Heggs Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because the appellant has stated a facially sufficient claim that he is entitled to resentencing under the 1994 guidelines, we reverse.
In the instant rule 3.800 motion, the appellant alleges that the face of the record will demonstrate that he pled to a guidelines sentence rather than a specific term of years. He avers that he was sentenced under the unconstitutional 1995 guidelines and that his sentence constitutes a departure sentence under the 1994 sentencing guidelines. The trial court summarily denied the appellant’s motion as untimely.
A Heggs claim is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion so long as the error is apparent on the face of the record. See Bell v. State, 795 So. 2d 1140, 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Because a rule 3.800(a) motion is not constrained by time limits, the trial court erroneously denied his claim as untimely.
We therefore reverse the summary denial of the appellant’s claim to correct illegal sentence and remand with instructions to the trial court to either attach record excerpts conclusively demonstrating that the appellant is not entitled to be resentenced or to resentence the appellant in accordance with the 1994 sentencing guidelines.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ERVIN, KAHN, and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tidwell v. State, 253 So. 3d 767 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…en Tidwell's filing in the circuit court, if she can do so in good faith, a facially sufficient motion seeking relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) and Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. - 2 - 2000). See Lopez v. State, 890 So. 2d 534, 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) ("A Heggs claim is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion so long as the error is apparent on the face of the record. Because a rule 3.800(a) motion is not constrained by time limits, the trial court erroneously denied his cl…
Authorities Cited
- Bell v. State, 795 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)