GREGORY ALLEN LEWIS, 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.
Gregory Allen Lewis challenges a trial court order that partially denied and partially granted his Rule 3.800(a) motion. The court affirmed the order but allowed Lewis to refile his second claim as a properly sworn Rule 3.850 motion, as his current motion lacked the required oath and raised fact-based challenges inappropriate for Rule 3.800(a).
The court affirmed the trial court's partial denial and partial granting of the Rule 3.800(a) motion, holding that fact-based challenges to the lawfulness of conviction must be raised in a Rule 3.850 motion, which requires an oath. Lewis's motion cannot be converted to a Rule 3.850 motion because it lacks the required oath, but he may refile his second claim in a timely and properly sworn Rule 3.850 motion.
[1] A rule 3.800(a) motion is not cognizable for fact-based challenges to the lawfulness of a conviction.
[2] Fact-based challenges to the lawfulness of a conviction must be raised in a rule 3.850 motion.
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“where an appellant makes a fact-based challenge to the lawfulness of his conviction, the appellant's claim is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion and should be raised in a rule 3.850 motion”
Establishes the jurisdictional distinction between Rule 3.800(a) and Rule 3.850 motions for different types of claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLewis's written judgment and sentence contained a fingerprint card bearing the name Marcus Eugene Greene, Jr., rather than Lewis's name. The trial cou…
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 Cognizability Of Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s order denying in part and granting in part his rule 3.800(a) motion. His first claim is facially insufficient and without merit. In his second claim, the appellant requests his conviction and sentence be vacated where the written judgment and sentence contains a fingerprint card bearing the name of Marcus Eugene Greene, Jr., as opposed to the appellant’s name.
The trial court granted the appellant relief on this ground by directing the Clerk of the Court to amend the fingerprint card accordingly. It appears the trial court should have vacated the appellant’s judgment and sentence and subsequently entered a proper written judgment and sentence with a corrected fingerprint card. See Edwards v. State, 422 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
However, where an appellant makes a fact-based challenge to the lawfulness of his conviction, the appellant’s claim is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion and should be raised in a rule 3.850 motion. See Martell v. State, 676 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Yates v. State, 556 So. 2d 501, 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Wiley v. State, 604 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (citing Ferenc v. State, 563 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Gandy v. State, 560 So. 2d 1363, 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); State v. Spella, 567 So. 2d 1051, 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)). In the instant case, the appellant’s claim requires a fact-based inquiry conducted through an evidentiary hearing to test the validity of the fingerprint card.
This court does have the authority to convert a rule 3.800(a) action into a 3.850 proceeding where appropriate. See Valdes v. State, 765 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). However, where an appellant fails to include an oath, the motion cannot be treated as a rule 3.850 motion. See Stoutamire v. State, 710 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Here, the appellant’s motion is not properly sworn as required by rule 3.850, and thus, the appellant’s motion cannot be treated as a rule 3.850 motion.
Accordingly, we affirm the order partially denying and partially granting the appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion, but do so without prejudice to appellant’s refiling his second claim in a timely and sworn rule 3.850 motion. See Stoutamire, 710 So. 2d. at 744.
AFFIRMED.
WOLF, WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dennis v. State, 9 So. 3d 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…PER CURIAM. We affirm the denial of appellant’s motion to correct illegal sentence seeking out-of-state jail credit. However, we do so without prejudice to appellant’s raising this claim in a properly sworn rule 3.850 motion. See Lewis v. State, 926 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (court cannot treat rule 3.800(a) motion as rule 3.850 motion where motion is not properly sworn); Daily v. State, 750 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (affirming denial of 3.800(a) motion seeking jail credit without prejudice to de…
-
Rodriguez v. State, 202 So. 3d 460 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…la. 2d DCA 1999); Townsend v. State, 604 So. 2d 885, 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)). This Court can consider the motion as if it were properly filed under rule 3.850, when appropriate, but only if the defendant includes the proper oath. See Lewis v. State, 926 So. 2d 437, 438 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Appellant’s motion contained-such an oath and was timely filed. Thus, we will treat his claim as if it were properly raised under rule 3.850. . If the trial court determines Rodriguez was not informed of his right to conte…
-
Villalba-Santos v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…(Fla. 5th DCA 1990). We therefore agree with the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion. This affirmance is without prejudice to Appellant timely seeking the appropriate relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Lewis v. State, 926 So. 2d 437, 438 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). AFFIRMED. MAKAR, and MACIVER, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Valdes v. State, 765 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- State v. Spella, 567 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Ferenc v. State, 563 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Orestes Martell v. State, 676 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Stoutamire v. State, 710 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Staton v. Staton, 710 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Wiley v. State, 604 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Gandy v. State, 560 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Yates v. State, 556 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Edwards v. State, 422 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)