ISAAC E. RUTHERFORD, 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.
Rutherford's Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence was properly denied because he failed to allege that the sentence itself was illegal, instead challenging only the sentencing procedure.
A Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence must challenge the sentence itself as illegal under statutory or constitutional limitations, not merely procedural defects in its imposition.
[1] Rule 3.800(a) motions to correct illegal sentences challenge the legality of the sentence itself under statutory or constitutional limitations, not procedural defects in…
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“a kind of punishment that no judge under the entire body of sentencing statutes could possibly inflict under any set of factual circumstances”
Definition of illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) from Carter v. State
Isaac E. Rutherford appealed an order denying his Rule 3.800(a) motion, in which he challenged the sentencing procedure and the trial court's failure …
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 Sentencing Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
Isaac E. Rutherford appeals from an order denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) based upon his failure to allege a sufficient rule 3.800(a) claim. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
A rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence is intended to address cases in which the sentence imposes “a kind of punishment that no judge under the entire body of sentencing statutes could possibly inflict under any set of factual circumstances.” Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173, 1178 (Fla.2001) (quoting Blakley v. State, 746 So.2d 1182, 1186-87 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)). In the instant case, however, the appellant does not explain how his sentence fails to comport with statutory or constitutional limitations. Instead, he focuses entirely on the alleged flaws in the procedure used to impose his sentence *1133and specifically on the court’s failure to consider certain mitigating factors pursuant to section 921.141, Florida Statutes (1995). However, this is not a proper basis for a rule 3.800(a) motion and the appellant’s motion is insufficient for failure to allege that his sentence, itself, is illegal. See Young v. State, 38 So.3d 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Judge v. State, 596 So.2d 73, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (concluding that rule 3.800(a) is meant to challenge the sentence imposed and not the procedures employed in its imposition).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order denying the appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion.
AFFIRMED.
VAN NORTWICK, CLARK, and RAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rhondel Paris v. State, 156 So. 3d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…ct an illegal sentence is intended to address cases in which the sentence imposes ‘a kind of punishment that no judge under the entire body of sentencing statutes could possibly inflict under any set of factual circumstances.’ ” Rutherford v. State, 93 So. 3d 1132, 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (quoting Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173, 1178 (Fla.2001)); see also Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (en banc) (“[Rule 3.800(a)] is not a vehicle designed to re-examine whether the procedure employed t…
-
Burks v. State, 237 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…ct an illegal sentence is intended to address cases in which the sentence imposes 'a kind of punishment that no judge under the entire body of sentencing statutes could possibly inflict under any set of factual circumstances.' " Rutherford v. State, 93 So. 3d 1132, 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (quoting Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173, 1178 (Fla. 2001) ); see also State v. McMahon, 94 So. 3d 468, 477 (Fla. 2012) (quoting State v. Akins, 69 So. 3d 261, 268-69 (Fla. 2011) ). Here, the trial court sentenced Burks t…
-
MacHado v. State, 125 So. 3d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Rutherford v. State, 93 So. 3d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Negron v. State, 932 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). WARNER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 2001)
- Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Blakley v. State, 746 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)