ERNEST C. MURPH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*655] DAVIS, 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 violent career criminal sentence is illegal because he does not have the requisite prior convictions. See § 775.084(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1999). This claim is cognizable in a motion to correct illegal sentence. See Cook v. State, 816 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Thus, the postconviction court erred in denying Murph’s motion without addressing this claim. We therefore reverse the postconviction court’s order as it relates to Murph’s claim that he did not have the requisite prior convictions to qualify for violent career criminal sanctions and remand for further proceedings. We affirm the postconviction court’s order in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
KELLY and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Molina v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…onvictions. Instead, the trial court found that the claim was not cognizable in a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion. The determination that the claim could not be raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion was incorrect. See Murph v. State, 921 So. 2d 654, 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (citing Cook v. State, 816 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)), for the proposition that the defendant's claim that his VCC sentence was illegal because he did not have the requisite prior convictions was cognizable in a motion to…
Authorities Cited
- Cook v. State, 816 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)