GABRIEL THEISS, 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 reversed the trial court's summary denial of a Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging a life sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender statute, holding that the motion was legally sufficient on its face and required consideration on the merits.
A Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging the legality of a life sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender statute that is legally sufficient on its face must be considered on the merits rather than summarily denied without explanation or state response.
[1] A Rule 3.800(a) motion that is legally sufficient on its face must be considered on the merits and cannot be summarily denied without explanation or an opportunity for th…
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 intelligenceGabriel Theiss was sentenced to life imprisonment for burglary with assault or battery under the Prison Releasee Reoffender statute, and he filed a Ru…
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 Legality Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Gabriel Theiss appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his rule 3.800(a) motion challenging the legality of his life sentence for burglary with assault or battery under the Prison Releasee Reoffender statute. § 775.082(9)(a)l.o., Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998). The motion was legally sufficient under Suffield v. State, 132 So.3d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), and the case law cited therein. The trial court improperly denied the legally sufficient motion with no explanation and without ordering a state response. See Charles v. State, 100 So.3d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Shea v. State, 97 So.3d 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Theiss satisfied his burden of showing that the face of the record (i.e., the judgment and sentence) would demonstrate the alleged illegality in the sentence. Cf. Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045, 1051 n. 2 (Fla.2011) (“An appellate court should affirm the summary denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion whenever the appellate court’s review of the record establishes that the defendant did not satisfy the burden of showing entitlement to relief on the face of the rec*1292ord.”). Nothing in the record on appeal refutes the facially sufficient claim. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings to consider appellant’s claim on the merits.
Reversed and Remanded.
WARNER, STEVENSON and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 2011)
- Shea v. State, 97 So. 3d 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Suffield v. State, 132 So. 3d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Darryle Mattear v. State, 100 So. 3d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Jean-Charles v. State, 100 So. 3d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)