JOHN D. MORROW, 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.
The appellate court held that the trial court's order denying the motion to correct an illegal sentence must be reversed because the record was insufficient to review the harmless error analysis.
[1] A harmless error analysis of an Apprendi/Blakely violation requires review of the entire trial transcript.
[2] An appellate court must reverse an order denying a rule 3.800(a) motion if the record is insufficient to conduct a harmless error analysis.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant sought to correct an upward departure sentence deemed illegal under Apprendi and Blakely. The trial court denied the motion, finding the App…
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 Rule 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion in which he claimed that his upward departure sentence is illegal under Apprendi1 and Blakely. 2 In denying the motion, the trial court determined that Appellant’s sentence is legal because the Apprendi/Blakely violation was harmless under Galindez v. State, 955 So.2d 517 (Fla.2007).
Appellant contends that the trial court’s disposition of the motion exceeds this court’s mandate in Morrow v. State, 972 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), and that the record excerpts attached to the trial court’s order do not conclusively show that he is entitled to no relief.3 We find no merit in the first point, but we agree that reversal is required on the second point.
In this case, without the entire trial transcript, we are unable to meaningfully review the trial court’s determination that the Apprendi/Blakely violation was harmless. See generally Steward v. State, 619 So.2d 394, 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (noting that, in most cases, a court must review the entire trial transcript when undertaking a harmless error analysis); see also Mitchell v. State, — So.3d — (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (reversing an order denying a rule 3.800(a) motion because the record was insufficient for this court to conduct a harmless error analysis under Galindez). But cf. Plott v. State, 86 So.3d 516 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (holding that a claim similar to that raised by Appellant in this case is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion). *1227Accordingly, pursuant to rule 9.141(b)(2)(D), we reverse the order on appeal and remand for the trial court to attach the entire trial transcript to its order.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
CLARK, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Plasencia v. State, 170 So. 3d 865 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…was harmless. We express no opinion on this issue, which the postconviction court has not yet addressed. In any event, our record, which does not include the trial transcript, is insufficient to permit a harmless error analysis. Cf. Morrow v. State, 104 So. 3d 1226, 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (noting that the appellate court was not able to review the postconviction court’s determination that an Apprendi/Blakely violation was harmless where the record did not include the entire trial transcript). We are aware t…
-
Plott v. State, 165 So. 3d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…the record in this summary postconviction appeal did not include a transcript, in order to comply with the supreme court’s mandate, we ordered the circuit court clerk to supplement the summary record ■with the trial transcript. Cf. Morrow v. State, 104 So. 3d 1226, 1226-27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“[Wjithout the entire trial transcript, we are unable to meaningfully review the trial court’s determination that the Apprendi/Blakely violation was harmless.”). Having examined the relevant transcripts and documents, w…
Authorities Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004)
- Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2007)
- Plott v. State, 86 So. 3d 516 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Riley Steward v. State, 619 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Morrow v. State, 972 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)