MISTER DAVID SIMMONS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
David Simmons appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, challenging a habitual offender enhancement imposed on his second-degree murder conviction under the retroactive rule established in State v. Thompson. The court reverses and remands because the trial court failed to provide record evidence conclusively showing that Simmons was not entitled to relief, particularly regarding whether his offense fell within the Thompson window period of October 1, 1995 to May 24, 1997.
The court reversed the summary denial because the record failed to make the required showing that Simmons was conclusively not entitled to relief. The court remanded with instructions that if the trial court again summarily denies the motion, it must attach record excerpts conclusively demonstrating the appellant is not entitled to relief.
[1] An order summarily denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence must be reversed if the postconviction record does not conclusively show the appellant is entitled to n…
[2] If a trial court again summarily denies a postconviction motion on remand, it must attach record excerpts conclusively showing the appellant is not entitled to relief.
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“On appeal from a summary denial, this Court must reverse unless the postconviction record... shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief.”
Establishes the appellate standard of review for summary denials of postconviction motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSimmons was convicted of second-degree murder with a firearm and sentenced with a habitual offender enhancement. In his postconviction motion under Fl…
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 Habitual Offender Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant, Mister David Simmons, appeals an order summarily denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), challenging the imposition of the habitual offender enhancement for the offense of second degree murder with a firearm based on State v. Thompson, 750 So.2d 643 (Fla.1999). On appeal from a summary denial, this Court must reverse unless the postconviction record, see Fla. *245R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A), shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).
Because the record- now before us fails to make the required showing, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings. If the trial court again enters an order summarily denying the postconviction motion, the court shall attach record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to any relief.
We note that the State in its response filed in this Court has asserted that the defendant was convicted of a life felony, and therefore, he would “not be eligible for a habitual offender enhancement if he falls within the window period between October 1, 1995 and May 24, 1997.” (emphasis added). See Kinsey v. State, 831 So.2d 1253, 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“The imposition of a habitual felony offender sentence for a life felony can be challenged under the authority of Thompson if the life felony was committed between October 1, 1995, and May 24, 1997”). Rather than confirming the date of the offense, the State merely acknowledged that the defendant claimed in his rule 3.800(a) motion that the second degree murder with a firearm occurred on January 30, 1997, within the window period. At this point, we do not have any record evidence before this Court as to the date the offense occurred, but note that briefs filed before this Court almost fifteen years ago in case number 3D00-1507 indicate that the offense occurred on January 30, 1997.1 Thus, it appears that the defendant’s motion may be well-taken. We, therefore, encourage the trial court to address the merits of the defendant’s postconviction motion expeditiously on remand.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hawkins v. State, 195 So. 3d 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
-
Simmons v. State, 273 So. 3d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1999)
- Kinsey v. State, 831 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)