JOSE R. RANGEL, 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 motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) requires the defendant to allege that the offense was committed more than three years after release from prison, and the error must be apparent from the face of the record.
The defendant was sentenced as a Prison Release Reoffender (PRR) and appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. He argued his s…
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 Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jose R. Rangel, appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm.
The defendant was sentenced to fifteen yéars in prison as a Prison Release Reof-fender (PRR). In his rule 3.800(a) motion, the defendant claims that his sentence is illegal because the evidence the State provided to establish his last release date was hearsay evidence. The defendant does not, however, claim that he does not qualify as a PRR because he did not commit a qualifying offense within three years after being released “from a state correctional facility operated by the Department of Corrections.” See § 775.082(9) Fla. Stat. (2000).
To attack his PRR adjudication on a 3.800(a) motion, the defendant had to allege that his 2000 offense was committed more than three years after his release from prison. See Macaluso v. State, 912 So. 2d 694, 695-96 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). The defendant has not made this allegation, thus the trial court was correct in denying his motion. See Sampson v. State, 832 So. 2d 251, 253 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (claims regarding insufficient proof of prior convictions were legally insufficient where defendant failed to allege that he lacked the prior criminal record necessary for habitualization). Moreover, be cause here the error does not appear on the face of the record, it is not cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). See Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246, 1251 (Fla.2001) (“[T]he adjudication of a defendant as a habitual offender when the requisite sequential felonies do not exist may be corrected as an illegal sentence pursuant to rule 3.800(a) so long as the error is apparent from the face of the record.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Ives v. State, 993 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…rted with statutory law and due process.” Id. at 1249 (citing Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)). Ives’ challenge to the procedure used in qualifying him for PRR sentencing is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. Rangel v. State, 937 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). A deficiency merely in the procedure employed, where the movant actually qualifies for an enhanced sentence, does not result in an illegal sentence. Because the instant motion was filed within the time for seeking relief under r…
-
Tucker v. State, 206 So. 3d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…e Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045 (Fla.2011); Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000); Ellis v. State, 762 So. 2d 912 (Fla.2000); Ward v. State, 946 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Ives v. State, 993 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Rangel v. State, 937 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). NORTHCUTT, LaROSE, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.…
-
Williams v. State, 982 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Rangel v. State, 937 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). STONE, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2001)
- Sampson v. State, 832 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Iric v. Spears, 912 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- MacAluso v. State, 912 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)