GENE HIGGINBOTHAM, 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.
Higginbotham appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to attach the guidelines scoresheet or other record evidence when denying his claim that his 50-year concurrent sentences exceeded statutory maximums.
The trial court erred in denying the motion without attaching portions of the record conclusively refuting the illegality claim. When denying a cognizable 3.800(a) motion, the trial court must attach the guidelines scoresheet and other record evidence, not rely on documentation supplied by the state on appeal.
[1] A trial court denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence must attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim.
[2] Sentences imposed under the sentencing guidelines must be imposed even if they exceed the statutory maximum sentence otherwise authorized.
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“when denying a cognizable 3.800(a) claim, the trial court must attach portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim”
Establishes the procedural requirement that trial courts must make the record clear when denying sentence correction motions, not allow deficiencies to be cured on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1998, Higginbotham was convicted by jury of four counts of DUI manslaughter and one count of DUI causing serious bodily injury. He was sentenced to…
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 Dui With Serious Bodily Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). For the reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand.
In 1998, the appellant was convicted following a jury trial of four counts of DUI manslaughter and one count of DUI causing serious bodily injury, and was sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment concurrent on each count. He filed a rule 3.800(a) motion alleging that the fifty-year sentences were illegal because they were above the statutory máximums for the offense. The state asserts that the appellant’s sentences of 600 months’ imprisonment are legal as they are within the guidelines range. §§ 921.001(5)(‘Tf a recommended sentence under the guidelines exceeds the maximum sentence otherwise authorized by s. 775.082, the sentence under the guidelines must be imposed, absent a departure.”) Fla. Stat. (1997); 921.0014(2) (same), Fla. Stat. (1997); Mays v. State, 717 So.2d 515, 516 (Fla.1998). However, the trial court failed to attach the appellant’s guidelines scoresheet or *1042anything else indicating that the appellant’s sentences are legal.1 See, e.g., Corp v. State, 698 So.2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (“when denying a cognizable 3.800(a) claim, the trial court must attach portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim”). Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to attach the guidelines scoresheet conclusively refuting this claim or for resentencing within the applicable statutory máximums.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
BENTON, C.J, HAWKES, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Obie Dewayne Holliman v. State, 152 So. 3d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…f the record refuting the appellant’s claim or to grant the requested relief. Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(d); see, e.g., Brown v. State, 132 So. 3d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Cummings v. State, 106 So. 3d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Higginbotham v. State, 69 So. 3d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). But see Casteel v. State, 141 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (“We do not accept the State’s concession. The Florida Supreme Court has made clear that a trial court is not required to attach any records to an order denying a rule…
Authorities Cited
- Mays v. State, 717 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1998)
- Melville Joseph Corp v. State, 698 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Core v. State, 685 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)