Byars v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Byars v. State

805 So. 2d 860, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12872, 2001 WL 1041804

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 12, 2001

DocketNo. 2D01-2687

StatusPublished

This text of 805 So. 2d 860 (Byars 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

Byars v. State, 805 So. 2d 860, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12872, 2001 WL 1041804 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

STRINGER, Judge.

Daniel Byars challenges the order of the trial court denying his post-conviction motion. Although Byars filed his motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, the sole claim in his motion is that his sentence is illegal because he was sentenced under an unconstitutional version of the 1995 sentencing guidelines. Such a claim is properly raised pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). See Baxter v. State, 769 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). This court has the authority to treat Byars’ motion as if it were filed pursuant to the appropriate rule. See Stewart v. State, 746 So.2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

In its order, the trial court gave no reasons for its denial of Byars’ claim. However, we affirm the order of the trial court because, in failing to allege that the sentence imposed was a departure under the 1994 sentencing guidelines, Byars failed to allege a facially sufficient claim. Daniels v. State, 771 So.2d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Our affirmance is without prejudice to any ability Byars might have to file a facially sufficient motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a). See Tidwell v. State, 790 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

Affirmed.

PARKER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., Concur.

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

STRINGER, Judge.

Daniel Byars challenges the order of the trial court denying his post-conviction motion. Although Byars filed his motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, the sole claim in his motion is that his sentence is illegal because he was sentenced under an unconstitutional version of the 1995 sentencing guidelines. Such a claim is properly raised pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). See Baxter v. State, 769 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). This court has the authority to treat Byars’ motion as if it were filed pursuant to the appropriate rule. See Stewart v. State, 746 So.2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

In its order, the trial court gave no reasons for its denial of Byars’ claim. However, we affirm the order of the trial court because, in failing to allege that the sentence imposed was a departure under the 1994 sentencing guidelines, Byars failed to allege a facially sufficient claim. Daniels v. State, 771 So.2d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Our affirmance is without prejudice to any ability Byars might have to file a facially sufficient motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a). See Tidwell v. State, 790 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

Affirmed.

PARKER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

805 So. 2d 860, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12872, 2001 WL 1041804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byars-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack