ARMANDO AURELIO RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 summary denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence must be reversed if the record does not conclusively refute the defendant's claim.
[1] A summary denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence must be reversed on appeal unless the postconviction record conclusively shows the appellant is entitled to no…
[2] When a trial court summarily denies a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on prior litigation of the issue, it must attach sufficient record documentation to demo…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant sought credit for time served on house arrest under a substantial assistance agreement. The trial court summarily denied the motion with…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.141(B)(2)(D) cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, C.J.
This is an appeal of a summary denial of a motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In the motion, Armando A. Rodriguez seeks additional credit for time served. We reverse for further proceedings.
According to the motion, defendant-appellant Rodriguez entered into a substantial assistance agreement. The defendant alleges that under his plea bargain, it was agreed that he would receive credit not only for prior jail time served, but also credit for time served on house arrest. The defendant maintains that this agreement is reflected in the plea agreement and the transcript of the plea colloquy. The trial court summarily denied the motion, and the defendant has appealed.
Oh appeal from a summary denial of a Rule 3.800(a) motion, this court must reverse unless the postconviction record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). In this case the trial court did not attach the plea colloquy or the plea agreement, so the record before us does not conclusively refute the defendant’s claim.
The trial court’s order denying rehearing appears to state that the issues raised in the Rule 3.800(a) motion had been previously litigated. Where that is the basis of a summary denial of postconviction relief, it is necessary for the trial court to attach to its order sufficient record documentation to demonstrate that the identical Rule 3.800(a) issue had previously been raised and adjudicated on the merits.* See id.; see also State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 291 (Fla.2003).
Because the record now before us fails to conclusively refute the defendant’s claim, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings or for the attachment of record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to any relief.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
*
As an alternative, it is sufficient if the documents conclusively refuting the defendant's claim are attached to any of the parties’ pleadings. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hill v. State, 56 So. 3d 905 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…s claim. Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded to the trial court for the attachment of those portions of the record that conclusively refute Hill’s claim that the requisite predicate felonies do not ex [*906] ist. See Rodriguez v. State, 919 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). REVERSED and REMANDED. TORPY and COHEN, JJ., concur.…
-
Torrealba v. State, 947 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…otion, response, reply, order on the motion, motion for rehearing, response, reply, order on the motion for rehearing, and attachments to any of the foregoing, together with the certified copy of the notice of appeal.”); see also Rodriguez v. State, 919 So. 2d 576, 577 n. * (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Bryant v. State, 944 So. 2d 1016, 1017 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). The record excerpts attached to the State’s amended trial court response were properly considered by the trial court, and this court. Affirmed in part, re…
-
Johnson v. State, 47 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…, the trial court did not attach the judgment and sentence to its order. Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the trial court for the attachment of the portions of the record that conclusively refute the defendant’s claim. See Rodriguez v. State, 919 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). REVERSED and REMANDED. TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)