RICKEY L. SUTTON, 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 reversed the trial court's denial of a motion to correct illegal sentence on the ground that the trial court failed to attach written sentencing documents necessary to determine whether the appellant's sentences were facially illegal.
A trial court must attach portions of the sentencing record when denying a motion to correct illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) to allow appellate review of whether sentences are facially illegal.
[1] A trial court must attach portions of the sentencing record when denying a motion to correct illegal sentence to enable appellate review of facial illegality.
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 intelligence“the well-established requirement that the trial court attach portions of the record conclusively refuting a claim of illegal sentence”
Court explaining the procedural requirement violated by the trial court's denial without attaching sentencing documents
Sutton was convicted of multiple offenses and received a sentence of life imprisonment plus 27 years on all counts, despite some convictions being for…
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 General Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse the denial of ground one for the attachment of record portions refuting the appellant’s claim. We affirm the denial of the appellant’s remaining claims without discussion.
In ground one, the appellant raised a facially sufficient claim that his sentences for multiple convictions are illegal because the trial court imposed one general sentence of life imprisonment plus 27 years on all counts even though some of his convictions were for offenses that are no't punishable by life imprisonment. The trial court denied the claim, but failed to attach the written sentences, which would conclusively show whether the appellant is currently serving an illegal sentence. See Corp v. State, 698 So. 2d 1349 (noting the well-established requirement that the trial court attach portions of the record conclusively refuting a claim of illegal sentence). The denial of ground one of appellant’s motion is therefore reversed and remanded for the trial court to attach record portions refuting the appellant’s claim.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
HAWKES, and THOMAS, JJ., and ERVIN, III, RICHARD W., Senior Judge, concur.