JAMES E. MCNAIR, 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.
James McNair appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), arguing that his prior aggravated assault conviction did not qualify him for sentencing as a three-time violent felony offender. The Florida appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that the claim was not cognizable under rule 3.800(a) because it should have been raised on direct appeal or in a timely postconviction motion.
A claim that a prior conviction does not qualify as a predicate offense for three-time violent felony offender sentencing is not cognizable under rule 3.800(a) and should have been raised on direct appeal or in a timely postconviction motion under rule 3.850.
[1] A claim that a prior conviction does not qualify for sentencing as a habitual violent felony offender is not cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a)…
[2] Challenges to the legality of a sentence based on the classification of prior offenses should be raised on direct appeal or in a timely motion for postconviction relief u…
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“Because the record as a whole does not demonstrate on its face an entitlement to relief, this claim is not cognizable under rule 3.800(a). Instead, it should have been raised on direct appeal or in a timely motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.”
Establishes the core holding that challenges to predicate offense qualifying status must proceed through direct appeal or rule 3.850, not rule 3.800(a)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcNair was sentenced as a three-time violent felony offender under section 775.084(c), Florida Statutes. He relied on a prior conviction for aggravate…
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 Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
James McNair appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He argues that his prior conviction for aggravated assault is not a qualifying offense for the purpose of sentencing him as a three-time violent felony offender under section 775.084(c), Florida Statutes (2006). Because the record as a whole does not demonstrate on its face an entitlement to relief, this claim is not cognizable under rule 3.800(a).1 Instead, it should have been raised on direct appeal or in a timely motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.2 See Hill v. State, 912 So.2d 610, 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (citing Cook v. State, 816 So.2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFRIMED.
BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., and JACOBUS, B.W., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McNair v. State, 244 So. 3d 379 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…tate, 60 So. 3d 1045, 1050 (Fla. 2011) ("Under rule 3.800(a), 'the burden [is on] the petitioner to demonstrate an entitlement to relief on the face of the record.' " (quoting Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600, 602 (Fla. 2007) ) ). McNair v. State, 212 So. 3d 1143, 1143 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). Because McNair's claim was not cognizable under rule 3.800(a), we concluded that it should have been raised on direct appeal or pursuant to rule 3.850. Id. at 1143. McNair then filed a motion for postconviction relief…
-
McNair v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…. State, 60 So. 3d 1045, 1050 (Fla. 2011) (“Under rule 3.800(a), ‘the burden [is on] the petitioner to demonstrate an entitlement to relief on the face of the record.’” (quoting Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600, 602 (Fla. 2007))). McNair v. State, 212 So. 3d 1143, 1143 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). Because McNair’s claim was not cognizable under rule 3.800(a), we concluded that it should have been raised on direct appeal or pursuant to rule 3.850. Id. at 1143. McNair then filed a motion for postconviction relief…
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 2011)
- Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007)
- Cook v. State, 816 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- McCLAIN v. State, 157 So. 3d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Hill v. State, 912 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)