LESTER B. SHEPARD, 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 summary denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence because the record did not conclusively refute the appellant's Heggs claim and the trial court failed to attach record materials supporting its denial.
A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Heggs v. State is facially sufficient if it alleges the offense occurred within the Trapp window period, that the sentence departs from 1994 sentencing guidelines, and includes the offense date, and summary denial without record attachments is reversible error.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Heggs v. …
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 intelligenceShepard filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), alleging his sentence was illegal under Heggs…
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 Heggs Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He alleges that his sentence is illegal under Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). Because the record does not conclusively refute the appellant’s claim, we reverse.
In order to state a cognizable claim under Heggs, one must allege that the offense at issue was committed within the window period set out in Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924, 928 (Fla.2000), and that the resulting sentence constitutes a departure from the 1994 sentencing guidelines. See Daniels v. State, 771 So. 2d 57, 57-58 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The motion must also include the date of the offense. See Smith v. State, 765 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Appellant’s motion contains the required allegations and is, therefore, facially sufficient. However, the trial court denied the motion without any record attachments.
We therefore reverse the trial court’s summary denial of the appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence and remand for the trial court to attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the appellant’s claim or to re-sentence the appellant as the record dictates.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
BARFIELD, DAVIS, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)
- Daniels v. State, 771 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Smith v. State, 765 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)