ANTHONY MANCHILD MCDONALD, 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.
The court held that the trial court properly denied the postconviction motion because the record conclusively refuted the claim.
The defendant sought postconviction relief, arguing he was ineligible for a sentence enhancement. The trial court denied the motion without attaching …
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 Violent Career Criminal cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the trial court’s order denying McDonald’s postconviction motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court denied relief without attaching supporting documents conclusively refuting McDonald’s claim.
In this case, however, we have taken judicial notice of McDonald’s previous filings in this Court. See, e.g., Romeo v. State, 965 So.2d 197, 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (taking judicial notice of a postcon-viction movant’s previous filings). In Case No. 3D07-2277, McDonald submitted the transcript from the applicable sentencing hearing. The transcript reveals McDonald stipulated to his prior burglary convictions. Additionally, evidence was introduced at the hearing that McDonald was released from prison some three years prior to his arrest for, and eventual conviction of, the burglary that led to his current sentence. These portions of transcript make it clear McDonald was eligible for the sentence enhancement he received as a violent career criminal pursuant to section 775.084(l)(d) of the Florida Statutes. The order on appeal is therefore affirmed.1