EDWARD PRIDE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2008-02-06
No. 3D04-1219
Before COPE, SUAREZ, and CORTIÑAS, JJ.
973 So. 2d 658 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2008) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Edward Pride appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction motions under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) and 3.850 while in custody under the Jimmy Ryce Act. The appellate court reversed the summary denial of the Rule 3.800(a) motion regarding sentencing guideline scoresheet errors but affirmed the denial of the Rule 3.850 motion as untimely.


Holding

The court reversed the summary denial of the Rule 3.800(a) motion because the postconviction record failed to conclusively show Pride was not entitled to relief on the scoresheet error claim. The court affirmed the denial of the Rule 3.850 motion as untimely with no applicable exception.


Headnotes

[1] A claim that a plea was involuntary is not cognizable in a motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).

[2] On appeal from the summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief, an appellate court must reverse unless the record conclusively shows the appellant is not entitl…

Previewing 2 of 4 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

Key Quotes

“On appeal from the summary denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion, this court must reverse unless the postconviction record shows conclusively that the appellant is not entitled to any relief.”

Establishes the standard of review requiring the record to conclusively demonstrate no entitlement to relief

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Pride is in custody under the Jimmy Ryce Act and filed a Rule 3.800(a) motion alleging his sentencing guidelines scoresheet incorrectly included point…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of orders denying post-conviction motions under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) and 3.850. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Defendant-appellant Pride is in custody under the Jimmy Ryce Act. In his Rule 3.800(a) motion, the defendant seeks to bring himself under the rule in State v. Atkinson, 831 So. 2d 172 (Fla.2002). In Atkinson, the defendant was allowed to demonstrate that under a properly corrected sentence, the sentence would have expired prior to the effective date of the Jimmy Ryce Act. Id. at 174. In the present case, the defendant maintains that under a properly calculated scoresheet, his sentence likewise would have expired prior to the effective date of the Act.

In his Rule 3.800(a) motion, the defendant alleges that there was an incorrect calculation made in his sentencing guidelines scoresheet. The scoresheet included points for legal constraint on the theory that the defendant was on probation in another case at the time of the probation violation in this case. In the trial court, the State conceded that those points should not have been scored. If those points are eliminated, then the defendant drops into a lower guidelines cell.

The State contended, however, that it had located several additional prior convictions for this defendant which, if added to the scoresheet, resulted in a higher score than the original one. Defense counsel argued that the additional offenses were not scorable and had not been shown to belong to this defendant. While the trial court apparently was shown the State’s recalculated scoresheet and certified copies of the convictions, those were not made part of the record below and are not part of the postconviction record now before us.

On appeal from the summary denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion, this court must reverse unless the postconviction record shows conclusively that the appellant is not entitled to any relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A), (D). Because the record now before us fails to make the required showing, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings solely on the claim of scoresheet error. If the trial court again enters an order summarily denying the postconviction motion, the court must attach record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to any relief. In this case that may include the State’s recalculated scoresheet, if approved by the trial court, plus the supporting documentation regarding the additional convictions.

In the Rule 3.800(a) motion, the defendant also attempted to raise the claim that his plea was involuntary. We entirely agree with the trial court that such a claim is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Babie v. State, 905 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

The trial court denied the Rule 3.850 motion as being untimely. We agree with the trial court that the motion was untimely and that no exception to the time limit was applicable.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Pettit v. State, 995 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
    …t have been subject to civil commitment. Such a claim is cognizable under rule 3.800(a) even after the defendant has served his allegedly illegal sentence and is no longer imprisoned. See State v. Atkinson, 831 So. 2d 172 (Fla.2002); Pride v. State, 973 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Accordingly, we reverse the order dismissing Mr. Pettit’s rule 3.800(a) motion and remand for the postconviction court to consider Mr. Pettit’s claim on the merits. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. CASANUEVA and…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw