OLSON PIERRE, 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.
Affirmed; movant failed to demonstrate entitlement to relief from allegedly illegal sentences under Rule 3.800(a) because the claim could not be resolved on the face of the record without an evidentiary hearing.
A movant seeking relief from allegedly illegal sentences under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) must demonstrate entitlement to relief on the face of the court record without requiring an evidentiary hearing.
[1] To state a facially sufficient claim for relief from illegal sentences under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), a movant must identify with particularity the no…
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 intelligenceOlson Pierre appealed a sentence, claiming it was illegal and seeking correction under Rule 3.800(a).…
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 Facial Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
Affirmed. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) (providing that “[a] court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it ... when it is affirmatively alleged that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to that relief’); John *593 son v. State, 60 So.3d 1045 (Fla.2011) (recognizing that rule 3.800(a) places the burden on the movant to demonstrate an entitlement to relief on the face of the record); Burgess v. State, 831 So.2d 137 (Fla.2002) (acknowledging that, as a general rule, resolving a claim alleging illegal sentences were imposed arising from a single criminal episode requires an eviden-tiary hearing, and therefore must be raised in a motion under rule 3.850; if raised in a motion under 3.800(a), such a claim must be capable of being resolved as a matter of law, without an evidentiary determination, and on the face of the existing court record); Taylor v. State, 969 So.2d 489 (Fla. 5th DCA.2007) (holding that, to plead a facially sufficient claim that illegal sentences were imposed arising from a single criminal episode, movant must, inter alia, identify with particularity the non-hearsay record evidence demonstrating his entitlement to relief); Lauramore v. State, 949 So.2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (same); Speas v. State, 887 So.2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (same).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 2011)
- Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2002)
- Carroll Lauramore v. State, 949 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Speas v. State, 887 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Taylor v. State, 969 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)