JOSE M. ARCE, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion to correct an illegal sentence because the record did not contain sufficient documentation to establish the validity of the habitual offender sentence.
Jose M. Arce appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that one of the predicate offenses used for his habitual offend…
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 Predicate Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
For a second time, Jose M. Arce appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), and for a second time, we reverse. Arce is challenging the predicate offenses used to support his habitual offender sentence.
We reversed the summary denial once before because the record did not contain certain documents to refute his claim that one of the predicate offenses used to qualify him for habitual offender sentencing was not his. See Arce v. State, 936 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
After remand, the trial court attached the sentencing transcript, which does not contain the necessary documents to refute appellant’s claim. We note the state’s reference to case number 91-15433 as a qualifying predicate offense, but find that appellant’s release date on that conviction is not clear from the transcript provided. See § 775.084(l)(a)2 (2006), Fla. Stat. Without a clear release date we cannot ascertain whether Arce has the necessary qualifying convictions. We reverse and remand for attachment of any relevant portions of the record available to support the habitual offender sentence.
STONE, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arce v. State, 974 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…e and remand with directions that Arce be resentenced without habitual offender designation. Within his initial motion Arce alleged that one of the predicate offenses used to support his habitual offender sentence was not his offense. Arce v. State, 946 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). We reversed the denial of relief and remanded. Arce, 946 So. 2d at 654. Two additional opportunities have been afforded to refute that claim or to otherwise demonstrate that Arce qualified [*592] for habitual offender sentencing…
Authorities Cited
- Arce v. State, 936 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)