Dowe v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dowe v. State

794 So. 2d 624, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 3201, 2001 WL 245949

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 14, 2001

DocketNo. 2D00-4894

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 794 So. 2d 624 (Dowe 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

Dowe v. State, 794 So. 2d 624, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 3201, 2001 WL 245949 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Harold Dowe challenges the order of the trial court granting in part and denying in part his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) wherein he alleged that he was sentenced under an unconstitutional version of the 1995 sentencing guidelines. Dowe’s motion was directed towards two trial court cases. The trial court granted Dowe relief in trial court case number 97-3409F. However, the trial court found that Dowe was not entitled to relief in trial court case number 97-14310 because the date of the offense was outside the Heggs window.¹ See Smith v. State, 761 So.2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The trial court did not attach any portions of the record, such as the information, which would support this finding. We affirm the trial court’s order as regards 97-3409F but reverse and remand for further proceedings on Dowe’s claim that he was illegally sentenced in case number 97-14310. If the trial court again denies Dowe’s claim on 97-3409F, it shall attach those portions of the record that conclu[625]*625sively refute the claim. See Baxter v. State, 769 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

NORTHCUTT, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and SALCINES, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Harold Dowe challenges the order of the trial court granting in part and denying in part his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) wherein he alleged that he was sentenced under an unconstitutional version of the 1995 sentencing guidelines. Dowe’s motion was directed towards two trial court cases. The trial court granted Dowe relief in trial court case number 97-3409F. However, the trial court found that Dowe was not entitled to relief in trial court case number 97-14310 because the date of the offense was outside the Heggs window.¹ See Smith v. State, 761 So.2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The trial court did not attach any portions of the record, such as the information, which would support this finding. We affirm the trial court’s order as regards 97-3409F but reverse and remand for further proceedings on Dowe’s claim that he was illegally sentenced in case number 97-14310. If the trial court again denies Dowe’s claim on 97-3409F, it shall attach those portions of the record that conclu[625]*625sively refute the claim. See Baxter v. State, 769 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

NORTHCUTT, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and SALCINES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

794 So. 2d 624, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 3201, 2001 WL 245949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dowe-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack