SAMUEL CALIXTE, 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.
Samuel Calixte appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, holding that his claims regarding departure sentencing grounds, unapplied retroactive law, and reliance on acquitted conduct do not establish illegal sentences that can be challenged years after imposition.
The court affirmed the denial of Calixte's motion, holding that none of his three claims establish an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a). Alleged errors in departure reasons do not constitute illegal sentences; Blakely does not apply retroactively to his 1998 sentence; and reliance on acquitted conduct does not establish an illegal sentence that can be raised at any time.
[1] An alleged error in departure reasons does not establish an illegal sentence correctable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
[2] Blakely v. …
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Rule 3.800(a) "is not a vehicle designed to re-examine whether the procedure employed to impose the punishment comported with statutory law and due process"”
Establishes the narrow scope of Rule 3.800(a)—it does not address procedural errors in sentencing proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCalixte received an upward departure sentence in 1998. He filed a 3.800(a) motion claiming: (1) the sentencing court based the departure on unscored j…
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 Upward Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the circuit court’s denial of the defendant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence, but for reasons other than those upon which the circuit court relied.
The defendant’s motion raised three claims. First, the defendant claimed that the sentencing court based its upward departure sentence on unscored juvenile offenses. See Puffinberger v. State, 581 So.2d 897 (Fla.1991). We agree with the state’s response that an alleged error' in departure reasons does not establish an “illegal sentence” which can be corrected at any time under rule 3.800(a). See Wright v. State, 911 So.2d 81, 83-85 (Fla.2005). Further, the sentencing court did not depart based on unscored juvenile offenses, so Puffinberger is inapplicable.
Second, the defendant claimed that the sentencing court’s departure was improper because the court made factual findings beyond those which the jury determined. The defendant alleges such factual findings violated a new rule of law established in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). However, Blakely does not apply retroactively to the defendant’s 1998 sentence. See State v. Johnson, 122 So.3d 856, 862 (Fla.2013).
Third, the defendant claimed that the sentencing court impermissibly relied *284on conduct for which he was acquitted. However, this claim does not establish an “illegal sentence” which can be raised at any time. See Bover v. State, 797 So.2d 1246, 1249 (Fla.2001) (rule 3.800(a) “is not a vehicle designed to re-examine whether the procedure employed to impose the punishment comported with statutory law and due process”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173, 1178 (Fla.2001) (“To be illegal within the meaning of rule 3.800(a) the sentence must impose a kind of punishment that no judge under the entire body of sentencing statutes could possibly inflict under any set of factual circumstances.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 3.800(a) provides relief for a narrow category of cases where the punishment imposed is not authorized as a matter of law. Judge v. State, 596 So.2d 73, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The defendant’s claim that his right to due process was violated during the sentencing proceedings in 1998 cannot be raised at any time in a rule 3.800(a) motion.
Affirmed.
WARNER, GERBER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Durant v. State, 177 So. 3d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…ated by the rule.”); Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (“Rule 3.800(a) is intended to provide relief for a narrow category of cases in which the sentence imposes a penalty that is simply not authorized by law.”); Calixte v. State, 162 So. 3d 283, 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“Rule 3.800(a) provides relief for a narrow category of cases where the punishment imposed is not authorized as a matter of law.” (citing Judge, 596 So. 2d at 77)). In Wright, the Florida Supreme Court discussed examples o…
-
Burgess v. Fla. Dep't of Corr. (S.D. Fla. 2022)…asis to establish that the life sentences imposed were actually ‘illegal’ or a ‘kind of punishment that no judge under the entire body of sentencing statutes could possibly inflict under any set of factual circumstances.’” (quoting Calixte v. State, 162 So. 3d 283, 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015))). The state postconviction court adopted the State’s 3.800(a) Response, removed Burgess’s HVFO designation, and denied Burgess’s request for a resentencing. See Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part 3.800(a…
Authorities Cited
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004)
- Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 2001)
- Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2001)
- Wright v. State, 911 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2005)
- Puffinberger v. State, 581 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1991)
- State v. Sirron Johnson, 122 So. 3d 856 (Fla. 2013)