NICK JOE MASSIE, 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 improperly summarily denied the motion for postconviction relief without providing record attachments to refute the claim of an illegal sentence.
Appellant pleaded guilty and was sentenced under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act and as a Habitual Violent Felony Offender. He alleged his sentence…
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 Habitual Violent Felony Offender (Hvfo) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Nick Joe Massie, challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse for further proceedings.
Following a guilty plea, appellant was sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment on three counts of lewd molestation of a child as a prison releasee reoffender (“PRR”) and on count I also as a habitual violent felony offender (“HVFO”). In the instant rule 3.850 motion, appellant alleged that his attorney was ineffective for failing to object to an illegal sentence. He claimed that his sentence is illegal on count I because he was sentenced to equal concurrent PRR and HVFO sentences. A PRR may also be sentenced as a habitual offender, and the PRR sentence serves as a minimum mandatory. See Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000). However, the HVFO sentence must be longer than the PRR sentence, as equal concurrent sentences are in violation of the PRR Act. Id. at 659; Alvarez v. State, 789 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
The trial court did not provide record attachments refuting appellant’s claim. The summary denial of the motion was, therefore, improper. See Tompkins v. State, 872 So. 2d 230, 238 (Fla.2003); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d).
We, accordingly, reverse the summary denial of appellant’s motion and remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing or to refute appellant’s claim with record attachments.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WOLF, VAN NORTWICK, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Washington v. State, 200 So. 3d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…elief or the motion or claim is legally insufficient and that in reviewing a trial court’s summary denial of a postconviction claim, the factual allegations must be accepted as true to the extent they are not refuted by the record); Massie v. State, 947 So. 2d 1189, 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (stating that the summary denial of a postconviction motion is improper where the trial court did not provide record attachments refuting the defendant’s claim). Our reversal is limited to Count 3 given that Count 1 was dis…
Authorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)
- Tompkins v. State, 872 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 2003)
- Alvarez v. State, 789 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Reed v. State, 789 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)