GERARD GABRIEL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Gerard Gabriel appealed the trial court's summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), raising claims that his sentence exceeded statutory limits and that he was convicted of multiple offenses based on the same conduct in violation of double jeopardy. The appellate court reversed and remanded on the sentencing issue due to inadequate record documentation, but affirmed the denial regarding the double jeopardy claim as not cognizable under Rule 3.800(a).
On the sentencing claim, the court cannot determine from the record whether Gabriel's sentence exceeds the statutory maximum, and the trial court failed to attach written portions of the record conclusively refuting the claim as required by appellate procedure; accordingly, the case is reversed and remanded. On the double jeopardy claim, Rule 3.800(a) does not cognize claims attacking the conviction itself rather than the sentence, so the trial court's denial of that portion of the motion is affirmed.
[1] A trial court must attach portions of the record that conclusively refute a defendant's claim when summarily denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence.
[2] A claim that a sentence exceeds statutory limits is cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
Previewing 2 of 3 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“we cannot determine based upon the documents in the record if Gabriel's sentence exceeds the statutory maximum penalty. The trial court failed to attach written portions of the record conclusively refuting Gabriel's claim.”
Establishes that the trial court's failure to attach record materials supporting its summary denial was reversible error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGerard Gabriel filed a motion to correct his sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), claiming that the trial court exceeded …
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 Statutory Sentencing Limits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Gerard Gabriel appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand this case to the trial court for attachment of portions of the record that conclusively refute Gabriel’s claim. With respect to Gabriel’s double jeopardy claim, we affirm the trial court’s order denying his rule 3.800(a) motion.
In his motion to correct illegal sentence, Gabriel raised two claims. First, he alleged that the trial court erred in exceeding the statutory limits, as well as the sentencing guidelines, when it imposed his sentences. The trial court denied Gabriel’s 3.800(a) motion because his sentence was the result of a negotiated plea.
With regard to this allegation, we cannot determine based upon the documents in the record if Gabriel’s sentence exceeds the statutory maximum penalty. The trial court failed to attach written portions of the record conclusively refuting Gabriel’s claim. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). Consequently, and based upon the State’s proper confession of error on this point, we reverse and remand for further proceedings on this issue. On remand, if the trial court again enters an order summarily denying Gabriel’s post-conviction motion, the trial court shall attach written portions of the record conclusively refuting his claim. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D) (requiring reversal by this Court unless the record shows conclusively that the defendant is entitled to no relief).
Second, Gabriel alleged in his 3.800(a) motion that the trial court improperly convicted him of the offenses of murder in the second degree with a deadly weapon and armed burglary, based on the same assault on the same victim, thus violating double jeopardy. However, this double jeopardy claim is not cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) because it attacks Gabriel’s conviction rather than his sentence. See Coughlin v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224, 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).
Accordingly, with respect to Gabriel’s sentencing claim, we reverse and remand this case to the trial court for attachment of portions of the record that conclusively refute his claim. With respect to Gabriel’s double jeopardy claim, we affirm the trial court’s order denying his rule 3.800(a) motion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mumford v. State, 1 So. 3d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…otion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court granted relief on Claim One but denied relief on the remaining claims. We affirm the denial of relief on Claim Two on authority of Gabriel v. State, 962 So. 2d 920, 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). We reject the remaining claim without discussion. Affirmed.…
-
Bonet v. State, 51 So. 3d 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Gabriel v. State, 962 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).…
Authorities Cited
- Coughlin v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)