EMMETT TIMOTHY COX, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to correct an illegal sentence because the defendant waived the procedural requirements by stipulating to habitual offender status.
[1] A defendant who knowingly and voluntarily waives procedural requirements in a negotiated plea agreement forfeits the right to later challenge the sentence based on those…
[2] A motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) requires the movant to affirmatively allege that the court records demonst…
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 intelligenceThe defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced as a habitual felony offender, stipulating to his qualification. Years later, he moved to correct the s…
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 Burden Of Proof On Movant cases and more on FLexlaw
Emmett Timothy Cox appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm, because Cox failed to meet the burden imposed on him when seeking to correct or vacate an illegal sentence pursuant to rule 3.800(a).
On October 9,1998, Cox entered a negotiated plea to the charges of armed robbery with a firearm (three counts) and aggravated battery (one count), and was sentenced as a habitual felony offender to life imprisonment.1 As part of the negotiated plea, Cox expressly stipulated in writing that “he qualifies as a habitual felony offender pursuant to the statutory requirements set forth in 775.084,” and further stipulated that he had previously been convicted of qualifying predicate felonies in case numbers 89—47912, 89-47604, 89-47603, 89-47602 (each a conviction for armed robbery) and in case number 89-6004B (a conviction for burglary). Cox further stipulated in writing that “at least one of the above prior convictions was within five years of the cases for which the defendant is presently charged,”2 and that none of these prior convictions had been set aside, nor a pardon granted.
In 2016, Cox filed a pro se motion to correct illegal sentence, alleging that the sentence (and in particular, the habitual offender designation) was illegal because his prior convictions were not sequential as required by section 775.084(5).3 However, in his negotiated plea Cox expressly stipulated that he had been convicted of these prior predicate felonies and that he qualified as a habitual felony offender under *725section 775.084. In doing so, Cox knowingly and voluntarily waived the procedural requirements of section 775.084 and, with it, the State’s obligation to present evidence establishing that Cox qualified as a habitual felony offender.4 See Irving v. State, 627 So.2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); White v. State, 60 So.3d 1101 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).
Moreover, and as the State correctly argues, Cox failed to satisfy the burden imposed on him when seeking to correct an illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a). Unlike a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850,5 a motion .to correct illegal sentence pursuant to rule 3.800(a) places the burden on the defendant, who must “affirmatively allege[ ] that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief....” Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a). The burden is not upon the State to demonstrate that the records conclusively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief. In meeting his burden on a motion to correct illegal sentence, the defendant may not rely on facts beyond the face of the record. Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045 (Fla. 2011). In the instant case, Cox has failed to affirmatively identify court records which, on their face, demonstrate the existence of- an illegal sentence or an entitlement to relief under rule 3.800(a). Indeed, on its, face, the record below (which includes the written plea agreement and the sentencing transcript) undermines Cox’s claim that he did not qualify as a habitual felony offender.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Adolphus Rooks v. State, 224 So. 3d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…ence that failed to afford the offender a meaningful opportunity for. early release during his natural life (Hen-H)-,. . We further note that Rooks' had the burden ofestablishing an entitlement-to relief ón the face of the record. See Cox v. State, 221 So. 3d 723, 2017 WL 2350130 (Fla. 3d DCA May 31, 2017); Porkolab v. State, 187 So. 3d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). To the extent necessary to establish his claim, it was incumbent on Rooks to ensure that the record included [*279] the parole guidelines under which…
-
British D. Moss v. State, 305 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…defendant to affirmatively identify those court records which, on their face, demonstrate the existence of an illegal sentence or an entitlement to relief; the State has no burden to establish the defendant is not entitled to relief); Cox v. State, 221 So. 3d 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (same). See also Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2002) (acknowledging that, as a general rule, claims raised in a motion under rule 3.800(a) must be capable of resolution as a matter of law, without an evidentiary determin…
-
Espinosa v. State, 263 So. 3d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 2011)
- Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007)
- Irving v. State, 627 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Scottie Smart, Jr. v. State, 124 So. 3d 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Casteel v. State, 141 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Jarrett v. State, 89 So. 3d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)
- McCLAIN v. State, 157 So. 3d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Porkolab v. State, 187 So. 3d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Sharpe v. State, 60 So. 3d 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Latarsa White v. State, 60 So. 3d 1101 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)