Christopher Earl Martin v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Christopher Earl Martin v. State of Florida

182 So. 3d 675, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 17908, 40 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2634

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 25, 2015

Docket4D15-2009

StatusPublished

This text of 182 So. 3d 675 (Christopher Earl Martin v. State of Florida) 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

Christopher Earl Martin v. State of Florida, 182 So. 3d 675, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 17908, 40 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2634 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Martin appeals a trial court order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief as amended. We affirm in part, and reverse 'and remand in part.

Martin was convicted' of third degrée grand theft, criminal mischief, and cheating at common law. He was sentenced in absentia as an habitual felony offender (HFO) to ten years in prison. His direct appeal was dismissed by this Court in 2013 due to his fugitive status. See Jones v. State, 362 So.2d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Martin’s original motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 raised seven grounds, He was given leave to amend grounds one through three, which he did. The trial court summarily denied all seven grounds.

We affirm the denial of six of those grounds and confine our discussion to one part of his seventh ground in which he claimed his offenses fell outside of the five-year time period required for HFO status. § 775.084(l)(a)2.b., Fla. Stat. (2010). The trial court ruled that this claim should have been raised on direct appeal and was not cognizable in a rule 3.85.0 motion. To the contrary, this ground was legally sufficient and should have been entertained by the trial court either as a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence, or a rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief in the event it required consideration of extra-record material. Wilson v. State, 857 So.2d 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Bozarth v. State, 789 So.2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Stocker v. State, 617 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). His motion was verified and timely. The trial court has not attached portions of the record which could refute this challenge.

Accordingly, we affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

CIKLIN, CJ.,.STEVENSON and DAMOORGIAN,. JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Martin appeals a trial court order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief as amended. We affirm in part, and reverse 'and remand in part.

Martin was convicted' of third degrée grand theft, criminal mischief, and cheating at common law. He was sentenced in absentia as an habitual felony offender (HFO) to ten years in prison. His direct appeal was dismissed by this Court in 2013 due to his fugitive status. See Jones v. State, 362 So.2d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Martin’s original motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 raised seven grounds, He was given leave to amend grounds one through three, which he did. The trial court summarily denied all seven grounds.

We affirm the denial of six of those grounds and confine our discussion to one part of his seventh ground in which he claimed his offenses fell outside of the five-year time period required for HFO status. § 775.084(l)(a)2.b., Fla. Stat. (2010). The trial court ruled that this claim should have been raised on direct appeal and was not cognizable in a rule 3.85.0 motion. To the contrary, this ground was legally sufficient and should have been entertained by the trial court either as a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence, or a rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief in the event it required consideration of extra-record material. Wilson v. State, 857 So.2d 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Bozarth v. State, 789 So.2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Stocker v. State, 617 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). His motion was verified and timely. The trial court has not attached portions of the record which could refute this challenge.

Accordingly, we affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

CIKLIN, CJ.,.STEVENSON and DAMOORGIAN,. JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 So. 3d 675, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 17908, 40 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-earl-martin-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack