SALVATORE BENNETT, 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 trial court's failure to attach records refuting a defendant's claim in a rule 3.800(a) motion is reversible error.
Salvatore Bennett appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing his prior convictions did not meet the sequential sentenci…
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) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Salvatore Bennett timely appeals the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. Bennett argued in part that he did not qualify for habitual offender sentencing because his prior convictions did not satisfy the sequential sentencing requirement of section 775.084(5), Florida Statutes (2004).
The circuit court did not attach any records that refute this claim.
In denying a legally sufficient 3.800(a) motion, the trial court’s failure to attach portions of the record refuting the defendant’s claim is reversible error, and the State cannot cure this error by providing the records to this court on appeal. Collins v. State, 805 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); see also Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).
The circuit court’s order is reversed and remanded. On remand, the court shall address Richardson v. State, 884 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) and either resentence Bennett or if his motion is again denied, attach portions of the record to show that he qualifies for habitual offender sentencing. The denial of Bennett’s remaining claims is affirmed.
POLEN, KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Doctors Co. v. State, 940 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…ure to properly consider one of the many factors that may influence an opinion ..., but that failure should not prevent the opinion’s admission, nor cause its complete exclusion from the jury’s consideration.” Accord Dixon v. River City Brewing Co., 904 So. 2d 447, 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). In regard to the Department’s argument that TDC should be bound by the admission made by it in its answer to the complaint that the agreements were unambiguous and should be enforced pursuant to their clear terms, it shoul…
-
Petscher v. State, 936 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…ces where it appears that the trial court’s order may be correct, or when the state attempts to correct the error by submitting portions of the record in an appendix attached to its response in the appellate proceedings. See, e.g., Bennett v. State, 904 So. 2d 447, 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“In denying a legally sufficient 3.800(a) motion, the trial court’s failure to attach portions of the record refuting the defendant’s claim is reversible error, and the State cannot cure this error by providing the records…
-
Bennett v. State, 946 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…lt, we reversed the trial court’s order and on remand instructed the trial court to address this court’s decision in Richardson v. State, 884 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), quashed by State v. Richardson, 915 So. 2d 86 (Fla.2005). Bennett v. State, 904 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Following its decision in Richardson, the Florida Supreme Court quashed this court’s earlier decision in Bennett and remanded this case for reconsideration. Because appellant stated a legally sufficient claim, which was not…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Erick Richardson v. State, 884 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Collins v. State, 805 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)