FLAVIO GAVINO, 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.
Court reversed summary denial of Rule 3.800(a) motion where record was inconclusive whether defendant had two prior qualifying felony convictions required for habitual offender enhancement.
When the postconviction record is inconclusive on whether a defendant qualifies as a habitual felony offender, summary denial of a Rule 3.800(a) motion must be reversed and remanded.
[1] On appeal from summary denial of a postconviction motion, the appellate court must reverse unless the record conclusively shows the defendant is entitled to no relief.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was sentenced as a habitual felony offender. The official judgment showed one prior grand theft conviction, but Clerk's Office records indic…
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 Summary Denial Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of an order summarily denying a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). On appeal from a summary denial, this court must reverse unless the postconviction record, see Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A), shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).
Defendant alleges that he did not qualify as a habitual felony offender according to the habitual offender statute existing at the time of the crime because he did not have at least two prior qualifying felony convictions. See Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246 (Fla.2001). The official judgment and sentence for defendant’s prior offense indicates that defendant was convicted and sentenced to a single count of grand theft. In response, the State has provided records from the Clerk’s Office of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, showing computer records that defendant was in fact convicted of two counts of grand theft. At best, the record is inconclusive as to whether defendant is entitled to relief. Because the record now before us fails to make the required showing, 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.