JAMES LINDER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2011-01-26
No. 4D10-572
POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ„ concur.
54 So. 3d 1031 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2011) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 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

James Linder appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), claiming the trial court failed to attach record portions refuting his allegations. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, holding that while judicial precedent requires such attachments, the state's incorporation of relevant documents into the order satisfied that requirement, and Linder's underlying sentencing challenges lacked merit.


Holding

The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to correct an illegal sentence. Although judicial precedent requires trial courts to attach portions of the record refuting a legally sufficient 3.800(a) motion, the state's incorporation of relevant documents into the order satisfied this requirement. The 80 points for sexual penetration were properly awarded under section 921.0024, Florida Statutes, and any error in including points for the twelve-year-old offense was harmless because the same sentence could have been imposed with a corrected scoresheet.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court is not required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) to attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the allegations of a motion to corr…

[2] Judicial decisions have engrafted a requirement for trial courts to attach portions of the record that conclusively refute a legally sufficient claim in a motion to corre…

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

Key Quotes

“Although under rule 3.850 the court is required to attach portions of the record where the summary denial of a motion is not based upon its legal insufficiency, see Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d), there is no such requirement in rule 3.800(a) for the court to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting allegations of the motion. Nevertheless, this requirement has been engrafted by judicial decision.”

Establishes the distinction between 3.850 and 3.800(a) motions regarding the attachment requirement, and notes that courts have judicially imposed an attachment requirement on 3.800(a) motions.

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

Linder was convicted of sexual battery of a person more than twelve but less than eighteen by a person in familial authority. He was sentenced to eigh…

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
WARNER, J.

WARNER, J.

We affirm the denial of appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).1 His sole claim on appeal is that the court failed to attach portions of the record which conclusively refute the allegations of his motion. This claim lacks merit.

Linder was charged with and convicted of sexual battery of a person more than twelve but less than eighteen by a person in familial authority. A scoresheet was filed in which 80 points were included for penetration. He was sentenced to eighteen years in the DOC followed by ten years of probation. Linder filed a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence, asserting that the scoresheet added fourteen points for a crime that was twelve years old and could not be used in calculating his scoresheet. He also asserted that 80 points were erroneously added to the scoresheet for victim injury. He asserted that these two errors, combined, improperly increased his score by 94 points. The state filed a response and attached both the scoresheet as well as the verdict form which showed that the defendant had been found to have penetrated the victim’s vagina in the commission of the sexual battery. The trial court denied the motion, and appellant filed this appeal.

Although under rule 3.850 the court is required to attach portions of the record where the summary denial of a motion is not based upon its legal insufficiency, see Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d), there is no such requirement in rule 3.800(a) for the court to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting allegations of the motion. Nevertheless, this requirement has been engrafted by judicial decision. See, e.g., Fenelon v. State, 932 So.2d 431, 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding that trial court must attach portions of record conclusively refuting a legally sufficient 3.800(a) claim); see also Johnson v. State, 665 So.2d 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

In this case, however, the state attached copies of the relevant documents refuting his claims, which the court incorporated in its order. This sufficiently complies with the requirement that copies of those portions of the record be attached to the order for our review. As to the claim that 80 points were erroneously included, section 921.0024, Florida Statutes, provides that 80 points shall be scored for *1033sexual penetration, which corresponds to the jury’s finding. Appellant’s claim that the evidence did not support penetration cannot be brought in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. As to his claim of improper inclusion of points for a twelve-year-old offense, it is clear that the court could have imposed the same sentence with a corrected scoresheet, making inclusion of these points harmless error. See Brooks v. State, 969 So.2d 238, 243 (Fla.2007).

Affirmed.

POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ„ concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Allen v. State, 57 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
    …he trial court, but also attachments of portions of the record sufficient to support the denial.’ ” Macool v. State, 7 So. 3d 637, 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (quoting Brown v. State, 816 So. 2d 1142, 1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)); see also Linder v. State, 54 So. 3d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). The trial court failed to attach the referenced plea sheet to the order of denial. And, even if the plea sheet had been attached, it would have been insufficient to establish Allen knowingly and intelligently waived his entitlem…
  • Darwin Bois v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
    …ndor when imposing the sentence. . . . However, such a claim asserts error in the sentencing process, as opposed to the legality of the sentence itself, and thus, cannot be raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion.”) (citation omitted); Linder v. State, 54 So. 3d 1031, 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“Appellant’s claim that the evidence did not support penetration cannot be brought in a motion to correct an illegal sentence.”).…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw