MICHAEL E. OLIVE, 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 held that the trial court erred in summarily denying a claim that the sentence exceeded pre-Criminal Punishment Code sentencing guidelines, requiring attachment of supporting documents or resentencing.
Appellant challenged his sentence via a postconviction motion, arguing it exceeded statutory maximums and sentencing guidelines. The trial court denie…
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 Judicial Notice Of Court Records cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) and its order denying his motion for rehearing. The trial court correctly denied relief on Appellant’s argument that his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. See Monroe v. State, 36 So.3d 930 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (holding sentence of thirty-five years in prison with ten years’ probation for second-degree murder is within the statutory maximum under 1997 statutes). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s ruling on this ground.
The trial court erred, however, by summarily denying Appellant’s claim that his sentence exceeded the sentencing guidelines in effect prior to the Criminal Punishment Code’s effective date. Taking judicial notice of this court’s records of Appellant’s direct appeal, we conclude that Appellant has stated a facially sufficient claim for relief. Therefore, the trial court was required to attach supporting documents to its order that summarily denied his claim for relief. See Friss v. State, 881 So.2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court to attach additional portions of the record, including the sentencing guidelines scoresheet, which conclusively refute Appellant’s claim, or to resentence Appellant in accordance with the standards set forth in Brooks v. State, 969 So.2d 238 (Fla.2007).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
MONACO, C.J., and SAWAYA, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brooks v. State, 969 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2007)
- Friss v. State, 881 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Monroe v. State, 36 So. 3d 930 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)