JOHN THEOPHILE, 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.
John Theophile appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), arguing that his consecutive 25-year habitual offender sentences for attempted robbery with a firearm and aggravated battery with a firearm violate Hale v. State because the offenses constituted a single criminal episode. The court affirmed, holding that Theophile failed to allege facts from the court record demonstrating his entitlement to relief.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion because Theophile failed to allege with particularity the non-hearsay record documents and facts showing the consecutive sentences were based on a single criminal episode. A facially sufficient Hale claim cannot be based on hearsay information or police reports and must cite to facts apparent on the face of the court record demonstrating entitlement to relief.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) must allege that the court's records demonstrate a clear entitlement to relief.
[2] A claim of double jeopardy violation under Hale v. …
Previewing 2 of 6 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“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 the consecutive sentences were based on a single criminal episode”
Establishes the standard for pleading a Hale claim under rule 3.800(a)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTheophile was convicted of attempted robbery with a firearm and aggravated battery with a firearm and sentenced to consecutive 25-year sentences as an…
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 Evidentiary Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMAS, J.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because Appellant’s motion does not allege that the court’s records demonstrate a clear entitlement to relief, we affirm.
Appellant was convicted of attempted robbery with a firearm and aggravated battery with a firearm and sentenced to consecutive 25-year sentences as an habitual felony offender. He asserts that his sentence is illegal because the offenses constituted a single criminal episode. If true, Appellant’s consecutive habitual offender sentences would be in violation of Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993). The trial court 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 the consecutive sentences were based on a single criminal episode. Id. at 308 (citing Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)).
It is well established that a facially sufficient Hale claim cannot be based on a police report or any other type of hearsay information that is not subject to cross examination. See Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137, 142 (Fla.2002) (affirming that a Hale claim is not cognizable under rule 3.800 when based on hearsay information contained in a police report); Harris v. State, 875 So. 2d 735, 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that a facially sufficient claim of Hale violation cannot be established by charging document or “extra-record” facts).
We recognize that in Valdes v. State, this court held that it can consider a claimed Hale violation under rule 3.800 based on facts established in a prior direct appeal opinion. 765 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
Here, however, we do not have the benefit of any facts noted in a previous direct appeal; furthermore, Appellant has failed to allege the specific facts on which his claim relies. Relief under rule 3.800(a) is precluded where an evidentiary determination is required. Burgess, 831 So. 2d at 140. For this reason, Appellant could not demonstrate entitlement to relief under rule 3.800(a) without citing to facts established in the trial transcript or otherwise apparent on the face of the record. See Jackson v. State, 803 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (holding that a Hale claim under rule 3.800(a) requires more than a general allegation, and claim must cite to facts based on court records that demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief); Pullins v. State, 777 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (affirming trial court’s denial of Hale claim where 3.800(a) motion failed to point to record facts demonstrating crimes were committed in a single episode).
We therefore affirm, without prejudice to Appellant’s ability to file a properly pled rule 3.800(a) motion in the trial court.
We note that Appellant previously sought relief in 2000, also asserting a claim under rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. There, Appellant only cited legal authorities and sought an evidentiary hearing, but failed to support his claim with facts apparent on the face of the record. That claim was denied as untimely, based on Dixon v. State, 730 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1999) (holding that all such motions must be filed by August 16, 1997). Although our affirmance is without prejudice, we note that continuous filings that are deemed insufficient in nature can potentially subject Appellant to “vexatious litigant sanctions under section 68.093(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2006), or other sanctions available under section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (2006).
AFFIRMED.
HAWKES, J., concurs; BENTON, J., concurs in result.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Arias v. State, 413 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…ntence, 2) the error must appear on the face of the record, and 3) the motion must affirmatively allege that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief.”) (quotations and alterations omitted); see, e.g., Theophile v. State, 967 So. 2d 948, 949 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“Relief under rule 3.800(a) is precluded where an evidentiary determination is required. For this reason, Appellant could not demonstrate entitlement to relief under rule 3.800(a) without citing to facts established in the…
-
Teague v. State, 26 So. 3d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…y constitute inadmissible hearsay, Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137, 141 (Fla.2002), a rule 3.800(a) motion may not be predicated on information contained in such a document, even if it is a part of the record. Id. at 139. Accord Theophile v. State, 967 So. 2d 948, 949 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (stating that “[i]t is well established that a facially sufficient Hale claim cannot be based on a police report or any other type of hearsay information that is not subject to cross examination”). Accordingly, appellant’s m…
-
Martinez v. State, 976 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)….800(a). Id. at 845. Appellant has not identified record facts that show he is entitled to relief on his claim that his consecutive habitual felony offender (HFO) sentences violate Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521, 524 (Fla.1993). Theophile v. State, 967 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). In order to establish a sufficient claim of a violation of Hale in a 3.800(a) motion, Appellant must identify, with particularity, non-hearsay record documents and explain how they demonstrate that the crimes arose from a single…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Dixon v. State, 730 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1999)
- Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2002)
- Williamson v. Penni Lane Williamson, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Valdes v. State, 765 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Jackson v. State, 803 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Carroll Lauramore v. State, 949 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Harris v. State, 875 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Tillman v. Singletary, 777 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)