WILMANN RENAUD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court dismissed a petition for review of a Fourth District Court of Appeal decision, finding no actual conflict existed between the lower court decisions cited by the petitioner. The Court held that a Rule 3.800(a) motion for correction of an illegal sentence is not cognizable when the alleged illegality is not apparent on the face of the record, and that the petitioner's successive Rule 3.850 motion was properly dismissed as procedurally barred.
Rule 3.800(a) motions require that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief and do not contemplate an evidentiary hearing. When alleged illegality is not apparent on the face of the record, Rule 3.850 is the exclusive remedy. A successive Rule 3.850 motion is procedurally barred when the substantive issue was not raised in the initial Rule 3.850 motion.
[1] A requirement for relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief, and this rule doe…
[2] A claim of illegal sentence is not cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) when the alleged illegality is not apparent on the face of the record.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to ... relief.”
Establishes the requirement for Rule 3.800(a) relief - illegality must be apparent on the face of the record
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilmann Renaud sought relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) to challenge the legality of his sentence. The oral pronouncement of se…
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 Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We initially accepted jurisdiction to review Renaud v. State, 901 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal certifying conflict with the decisions in Fitzpatrick v. State, 863 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), and Berthiaume v. State, 864 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Upon further consideration, we have now determined that jurisdiction was improvidently granted. A requirement for relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is “that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to ... relief.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a). This rule does not contemplate the necessity of an evidentiary hearing. In the instant matter there was no increase in a sentence entered subsequent to the date the oral sentence was imposed and the date the defendant had begun serving the sentence which would implicate a facial double jeopardy violation or illegal sentence apparent on the face of the record. The oral pronouncement of sentence and the written sentencing order were imposed at the same hearing. Therefore, Renaud’s claim is not cognizable under a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence on the face of the record. When the alleged illegality of the sentence is not apparent on the face of the record, a rule 3.850 motion is the only available remedy. Unlike the present case, in both Fitzpatrick and Berthiaume the courts considered facial double jeopardy and illegal sentence implications under the facts presented.
Renaud failed to present this substantive issue in his initial rule 3.850 motion. Therefore, the Fourth District was correct in dismissing Renaud’s claim as a successive rule 3.850 motion which is procedurally barred. Accordingly, this re view proceeding is dismissed due to no actual conflict.
It is so ordered.
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007)…ral rule allows for petition to the courts to correct sentencing errors that may be identified on the face of the record and, because such errors may be resolved as a matter of law, do not require contested evidentiary hearings. See Renaud v. State, 926 So. 2d 1241 (Fla.2006); State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998); Hopping v. State, 708 So. 2d 263 (Fla.1998); State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983, 988 (Fla.1995). We have generally defined an “illegal sentence” as one that imposes a punishment or penalty tha…
-
Langdon v. State, 947 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…n cannot be remedied on appeal by the state’s attempt to furnish material refuting the prisoner’s claims.”);1 Lundy v. State, 912 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). However, Rule 3.800(a) “does not contemplate an evidentiary hearing.” Re-naud v. State, 926 So. 2d 1241, 1242 (Fla. 2006). We therefore remand for further proceedings. If the trial court again summarily denies the motion, it shall attach portions of the record showing conclusively that appellant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)…
-
Renoit Saintelien v. State, 990 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2008)…The majority limits its holding to errors that are "apparent on the face of the record.” Majority op. at 497. However, rule 3.800(a) is always limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. Fla. R.App. P. 3.800(a); Renaud v. State, 926 So. 2d 1241, 1242 (Fla.2006). The practical effect of the majority's opinion is that when the error is not apparent on the face of the record, these claims will now be cognizable under rule 3.800(b). See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562, 574 (Fla.2008) (…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fitzpatrick v. State, 863 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Berthiaume v. State, 864 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Wilmann Renaud v. State, 901 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)