MELVIN SCOTT, 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 grounds raised in the motion to correct an illegal sentence were not proper subjects for relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
Appellant sought to correct an illegal sentence, alleging the court imposed unaccepted conditions on his plea agreement and that he was sentenced in a…
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 Sentencing In Absentia cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Neither of the grounds alleged in the motion allege proper subjects of rule 3.800(a) relief.
First, appellant claims that the court placed additional conditions on the plea agreement which were not accepted by appellant.1 This issue does not go to the legality of the sentence but the validity of the plea or conviction.
Second, appellant objects to being sentenced in absentia when he failed to appear at his sentencing proceeding. Denial of the right to be present at sentencing does not make the resulting sentence illegal for rule 3.800(a) purposes. See, e.g., Patterson v. State, 904 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (affirming denial of rule 3.800(a) motion claiming defendant was sentenced in absentia, without prejudice to raise this issue in a timely rule 3.850 motion); Harris v. State, 789 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (holding habeas corpus claim of resentencing in absentia was not cognizable either as a rule 3.800(a) or a rule 3.850 motion, though a new sentencing hearing might have been required if direct review of the sentencing order had been sought).
Affirmed.
GUNTHER, WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur. . In any event, the record reflects that the court did not accept the plea until he added the condition that defendant appear for sentencing. The defendant agreed to the plea so stated by the trial court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donaldson v. State, 985 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…is absence from the hearing. Mr. Donaldson appeals the postconviction court’s order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. As a preliminary matter, we observe that this issue is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Scott v. State, 962 So. 2d 388, 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“Denial of the right to be present at sentencing does not make the resulting sentence illegal for rule 3.800(a) purposes.”); Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (“[Rule 3.800(a)] is not a vehicle designed t…
Authorities Cited
- Barnard v. State, 789 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Patterson v. State, 904 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Figueroa v. Variety Child's. Hosp. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 904 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)