ERNST KING, 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.
Appeal dismissed as premature because the trial court never ruled on King's Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence based on insufficient prior crimes for habitual felony offender status.
An appeal is premature and must be dismissed without prejudice when the trial court has not yet ruled on the underlying motion to correct an illegal sentence.
[1] An appeal of a motion to correct an illegal sentence is premature and must be dismissed without prejudice when the trial court has not yet ruled on the merits of the moti…
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 intelligenceKing filed a Rule 3.800(a) motion on October 6, 2011, challenging whether he qualified for habitual felony offender status due to insufficient prior c…
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 Premature Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Ernest King purportedly seeks review of an order concerning his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure “3.800(a) motion to *1093correct illegal sentence.” We dismiss the appeal without prejudice as premature.
On October 6, 2011, King filed a “Rule B.800 Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence,” in which he raises a single issue: whether King is entitled to sentencing relief where there are no qualifying prior crimes sufficient to impose habitual felony offender status. The record on appeal contains two orders. The first order, entered and rendered March 27, 2012, states, “The defendant has requested placement at South Bay Correctional Institute] to take advantage of educational and vocational programs offered at that facility. The court recommends that the Department place the defendant at that facility.” The second order, entered March 27, 2012, and rendered April 9, 2012, states, “The court recommends the defendant [be] housed at South Bay Correctional Facility to Take Advantage of educational and vocational programs at the facility.”
We are unable to determine how the trial court arrived at its orders changing King’s “residence.” Regardless, neither the record nor the trial court docket reflects any ruling by the trial court on the actual issue raised in King’s October 6, 2011, Rule 3.800 motion and response by the State dated November 17, 2011.
Because there presently is no reviewable order from which this court might grant relief, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to King filing an appropriate motion if and when the time comes.
Appeal dismissed.