CARROLL LAURAMORE, 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.
A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) is facially insufficient if it fails to allege how and where the record demonstrates that the crimes arose from a single criminal episode.
Appellant challenged his sentences for robbery and burglary as illegal, arguing they arose from a single criminal episode and thus consecutive habitua…
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 Hale V. State cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMAS, J.
Appellant challenges the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the trial court’s ruling.
Appellant asserts that his sentences for robbery and burglary are illegal under Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), which prohibits the imposition of consecutive habitual offender sentences for multiple crimes arising from a single criminal episode. The trial court treated Appellant’s motion as a motion filed pursuant to rule 3.850 and denied it as untimely.
A Hale claim is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion if the motion is facially sufficient and the issue can be resolved from the face of the record. See Jackson v. State, 803 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). In order to allege a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion, the appellant must allege: (1) he is serving an illegal sentence; (2) the error appears on the face of the record; and (3) how and where the record demonstrates an entitlement to relief. See Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
Appellant’s motion is facially insufficient, as he alleges neither how nor where the record demonstrates that his crimes arose from a single criminal episode. See Harris v. State, 875 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that in the context of a Hale claim, the appellant must identify with particularity the non-hearsay record documents demonstrating that his crimes arose from a single criminal episode); Jackson, 803 So. 2d at 845 (holding that a Hale claim alleging that the “trial transcripts”j demonstrated the crimes occurred in a single criminal episode was facially insufficient where the motion did not allege “how” the transcripts showed this). We AFFIRM the trial court’s ruling.
KAHN and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Theophile v. State, 967 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…t denied relief because Appellant relied on hearsay information and also failed to “point to any nonhearsay portion of the record to support his claim that his offenses arose in the same criminal episode.” As we recently held in Lauramore v. State, 949 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), a person asserting a double jeopardy violation under Hale is required to allege with particularity both the non-hearsay record documents that show an error on the face of the record, and “how and where” the record demonstrates t…
-
Taylor v. State, 969 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…of our sister courts have held that to plead a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) claim asserting a Hale violation, the defendant must identify with particularity the non-hearsay record documents that support his claim. See, e.g., Lauramore v. State, 949 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Jones v. State, 894 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Speas v. State, 887 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). We adopt this pleading standard. We believe that this standard will discourage defendants from filing obviously frivolous mo…
-
Carson v. State, 37 So. 3d 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion, the appellant must allege: (1) he is serving an illegal sentence; (2) the error appears on the face of the record; and (3) how and where the record demonstrates an entitlement to relief.” Lauramore v. State, 949 So. 2d 307, 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); see also Teague v. State, 26 So. 3d 616, 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Appellant alleged that his drug offender probation was illegal, that the illegality of the sentence was apparent from the face of the record, and that his co…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Williamson v. Penni Lane Williamson, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Jackson v. State, 803 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Harris v. State, 875 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)