Anderson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Anderson v. State

679 So. 2d 880, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9901, 1996 WL 531680

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 20, 1996·No. No. 95-4589·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order by which his motion to correct illegal sentences, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), was denied. His claim that his sentences are in excess of the maximum for the crimes of which he was convicted is legally sufficient under the rule. See Jefferson v. State, 677 So.2d 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Whether the claim has merit should be easily ascertainable from an examination of the trial court record, but the trial court did not attach relevant portions of the trial record as required by cases such as Fann v. State, 647 So.2d 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Accordingly, the order is reversed and the case is remanded.

MINER, ALLEN and LAWRENCE, 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 by which his motion to correct illegal sentences, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), was denied. His claim that his sentences are in excess of the maximum for the crimes of which he was convicted is legally sufficient under the rule. See Jefferson v. State, 677 So.2d 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Whether the claim has merit should be easily ascertainable from an examination of the trial court record, but the trial court did not attach relevant portions of the trial record as required by cases such as Fann v. State, 647 So.2d 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Accordingly, the order is reversed and the case is remanded.

MINER, ALLEN and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Anderson v. State, 679 So. 2d 880, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9901, 1996 WL 531680 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

679 So. 2d 880 (Anderson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related