OCELYN ST. CYR, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal denies the state's motion to supplement the appellate record with sentencing documents in a Rule 3.800(a) illegal sentence appeal. The court addresses the structural problem created by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2)(A), which limits the appellate record to motion-related documents rather than underlying sentencing papers, and holds that the state cannot cure defects in the trial court's order by supplementing the record on appeal.
The court denies the motion to supplement the record. The state cannot cure defects in the trial court's order by providing records to the appellate court on appeal. The appellate record is limited by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2)(A) to the motion, response, reply, order, and related documents, and sentencing documents must be attached to the order itself to be part of the appellate record.
[1] An appellate court cannot supplement the record on appeal with documents not originally included in the record transmitted from the lower tribunal.
[2] The record on appeal for a motion to correct an illegal sentence, as defined by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2)(A), does not include the original sentenci…
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“the state cannot cure the defect in the trial court's order by providing records to this court.”
Establishes the core holding that supplementation of the record on appeal is not permitted to fix deficiencies in the trial court's order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court issued an order d…
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 Refutation of Allegations cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal
In this appeal of an order denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), the state has moved to supplement the appellate record with the sentencing documents from appellant’s case file, as it claims a review of the sentencing documents is required for a complete understanding of appellant’s sentence and to respond to the issue raised in appellant’s brief. We deny the motion.
One would think that an appellate court should have available to it the actual sentencing documents any time it reviews the ruling on a motion to correct an illegal sentence. However, for reasons unknown to us, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2)(A) provides (and has always provided) that “the clerk of the lower tribunal shall transmit to the court, as the record, copies of the motion, response, reply, order on the motion, motion for rehearing, response, reply, order on the motion for rehearing, and attachments to any of the foregoing....” In other words, the record, as structured by the rule, does not contain the original sentencing documents, unless they are an attachment to the order.
When summarily denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence, the appellate courts have uniformly held that the trial court is required to attach to its order those portions of the record which conclusively refute the movant’s allegations. See Watson v. State, 51 So.3d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Smedley v. State, 993 So.2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Perez-Boza v. State, 943 So.2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Tyler v. State, 927 So.2d 194 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Moore v. State, 741 So.2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). The record in this case consists of the foregoing documents, and the sentencing documents are not attached to any of them. We have consistently held that “the state cannot cure the defect in the trial court’s order by providing records *1167to this court.” Bennett v. State, 946 So.2d 84, 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
The state must respond to the appellant’s brief with the documents contained within the record. The state and the criminal justice community should review and suggest an amendment to the rule on what constitutes the record on appeal in these cases, because the failure to include the sentencing documents as part of the record prevents a thorough review and probably results in unnecessary reversals.
POLEN and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Casteel v. State, 141 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…onal jail credit by order entered on April 23, 2013. The State concedes, however, that we would normally remand based on the trial court’s failure to attach records showing conclusively that appellant was not entitled to relief. See St Cyr v. State, 126 So. 3d 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Ways v. State, 114 So. 3d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). [*625] 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 8.800…
-
Williams v. State, 244 So. 3d 1173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
-
Shepard v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…the State is the movant, seeking to supplement the record on appeal via judicially-noticed documents in the appellant’s direct appeal, claiming they are necessary to fully understand and adjudicate the claims presented. See, e.g., St. Cyr v. State, 126 So. 3d 1166, 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (denying State’s motion to supplement the record). Levin requires denial of the State’s motion to supplement the record in this case, but it bears emphasis that symmetry in an overly constrained application of Rule 9.141(b…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Moore v. State, 741 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Bennett v. State, 946 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Rainer Perez-Boza v. State, 943 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Watson v. State, 51 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Tyler v. State, 927 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Smedley v. State, 993 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)