Adams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Adams v. State

808 So. 2d 278, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2203, 2002 WL 313169

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 1, 2002

DocketNo. 1D01-2989

StatusPublished

This text of 808 So. 2d 278 (Adams v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. State, 808 So. 2d 278, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2203, 2002 WL 313169 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order of the trial court summarily denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. The appellant’s motion asserted that he is entitled to relief under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). The trial court denied the appellant’s motion on the ground that he was sentenced pursuant to a negotiated plea rather than the 1995 guidelines, and thus is not entitled to relief. However, the trial court failed to attach portions of the record to support its reasoning. Because the appellant stated an otherwise facially sufficient claim for relief, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the appellant’s motion to correct his illegal sentence and remand for attachments from the record which conclusively refute the appellant’s claim or for reconsideration of the motion on its merits. See Hales v. State, 782 So.2d 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

ERVIN, BARFIELD and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order of the trial court summarily denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. The appellant’s motion asserted that he is entitled to relief under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). The trial court denied the appellant’s motion on the ground that he was sentenced pursuant to a negotiated plea rather than the 1995 guidelines, and thus is not entitled to relief. However, the trial court failed to attach portions of the record to support its reasoning. Because the appellant stated an otherwise facially sufficient claim for relief, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the appellant’s motion to correct his illegal sentence and remand for attachments from the record which conclusively refute the appellant’s claim or for reconsideration of the motion on its merits. See Hales v. State, 782 So.2d 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

ERVIN, BARFIELD and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

808 So. 2d 278, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2203, 2002 WL 313169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack