ROBERT HILL, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed summary denial of motion to correct illegal sentence where defendant claimed lack of predicate felonies for habitual felony offender enhancement, holding such claims are cognizable under Rule 3.800(a) when the defect appears on the face of the record.
A claim that requisite predicate felonies do not exist to support a habitual felony offender designation is cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) when the error is apparent from the face of the record.
[1] A defendant's claim that requisite predicate felonies do not exist to support a habitual felony offender designation is cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedur…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Where the requisite predicate felonies essential to qualify a defendant for habitualization do not exist as a matter of law and that error is apparent from the face of the record, rule 3.800(a) can be used to correct the resulting habitual offender sentence.”
Court citing Bover v. State to establish the cognizability of predicate felony challenges under Rule 3.800(a)
Robert Hill was sentenced as a habitual felony offender and filed a motion to correct his sentence arguing he lacked the required predicate felonies a…
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 Predicate Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
Robert Hill appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Hill argued his habitual felony offender sentences were illegal because he lacked the requisite predicate felonies. Hill further asserted the trial court erred in relying on the pre-sentence investigation report to support the habitual felony offender enhancement. The trial court denied Hill’s motion, finding his claims were not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. We reverse.
To the extent that Hill’s motion challenged the procedure used to enhance his sentence, the trial court was correct that it was not cognizable under rule 3.800(a). However, to the extent that Hill claimed he did not have the predicate felonies required to support a habitual felony offender designation, his motion was cognizable under rule 3.800(a). See Bover v. State, 797 So.2d 1246, 1247 (Fla.2001) (“[WJhere the requisite predicate felonies essential to qualify a defendant for habitu-alization do not exist as a matter of law and that error is apparent from the face of the record, rule 3.800(a) can be used to correct the resulting habitual offender sentence.”). The trial court’s order did not include record attachments refuting this claim. Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded to the trial court for the attachment of those portions of the record that conclusively refute Hill’s claim that the requisite predicate felonies do not ex*906ist. See Rodriguez v. State, 919 So.2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
TORPY and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Darwin Bois v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…ue process.’ Accordingly, we hold that Rule 3.800(a) is not the proper means to challenge a court’s failure to order a presentence investigation.”) (quoting Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)) (emphasis omitted); Hill v. State, 56 So. 3d 905, 905 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (rejecting the argument under rule 3.800(a) that “the trial court erred in relying on the pre-sentence investigation report to support the habitual felony offender enhancement” because it related to the “procedure used to…
-
Battles v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…e § 775.084(1)(a), (5), Fla. Stat. (2006). Because Battles' motion presented a facially sufficient claim, cognizable under rule 3.800(a), the trial court must address it. See Walker v. State, 940 So. 2d 1215, 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Hill v. State, 56 So. 3d 905, 905 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Therefore, we reverse the order on appeal and remand with instructions that the court consider the merits of the claim.1 Reversed and remanded. KELLY, SLEET, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to…
Authorities Cited
- Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2001)
- Rodriguez v. State, 919 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)