Debritton M. Stevenson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Debritton M. Stevenson v. State

207 So. 3d 266, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14634

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 30, 2016

Docket5D16-1927

StatusPublished

This text of 207 So. 3d 266 (Debritton M. Stevenson 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

Debritton M. Stevenson v. State, 207 So. 3d 266, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14634 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Debritton Stevenson appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence. In his motion, Stevenson argued that his minimum mandatory sentence for actual possession of a firearm was illegal because the information did not allege that he actually possessed a firearm. Because the trial court did not attach records to support its conclusion that the minimum mandatory sentence was legal, we are compelled to reverse. See DiSanto v. State, 190 So.3d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). On remand, if the trial court again enters an order summarily denying Stevenson’s motion, it must attach written portions of the record that conclusively refute his claim.

*267 REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

EVANDER, COHEN and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Debritton Stevenson appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence. In his motion, Stevenson argued that his minimum mandatory sentence for actual possession of a firearm was illegal because the information did not allege that he actually possessed a firearm. Because the trial court did not attach records to support its conclusion that the minimum mandatory sentence was legal, we are compelled to reverse. See DiSanto v. State, 190 So.3d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). On remand, if the trial court again enters an order summarily denying Stevenson’s motion, it must attach written portions of the record that conclusively refute his claim.

*267 REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

EVANDER, COHEN and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 So. 3d 266, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/debritton-m-stevenson-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack