Gabriel Theiss v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gabriel Theiss v. State

152 So. 3d 1291, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 173, 2015 WL 71659

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 7, 2015

Docket4D14-3163

StatusPublished

This text of 152 So. 3d 1291 (Gabriel Theiss 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

Gabriel Theiss v. State, 152 So. 3d 1291, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 173, 2015 WL 71659 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Gabriel Theiss appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his rule 3.800(a) motion challenging the legality of his life sentence for burglary with assault or battery under the Prison Releasee Reoffender statute. § 775.082(9)(a)l.o., Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998). The motion was legally sufficient under Suffield v. State, 132 So.3d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), and the case law cited therein. The trial court improperly denied the legally sufficient motion with no explanation and without ordering a state response. See Charles v. State, 100 So.3d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Shea v. State, 97 So.3d 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Theiss satisfied his burden of showing that the face of the record (i.e., the judgment and sentence) would demonstrate the alleged illegality in the sentence. Cf. Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045, 1051 n. 2 (Fla.2011) (“An appellate court should affirm the summary denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion whenever the appellate court’s review of the record establishes that the defendant did not satisfy the burden of showing entitlement to relief on the face of the rec *1292 ord.”). Nothing in the record on appeal refutes the facially sufficient claim. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings to consider appellant’s claim on the merits.

Reversed and Remanded.

WARNER, STEVENSON and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Gabriel Theiss appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his rule 3.800(a) motion challenging the legality of his life sentence for burglary with assault or battery under the Prison Releasee Reoffender statute. § 775.082(9)(a)l.o., Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998). The motion was legally sufficient under Suffield v. State, 132 So.3d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), and the case law cited therein. The trial court improperly denied the legally sufficient motion with no explanation and without ordering a state response. See Charles v. State, 100 So.3d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Shea v. State, 97 So.3d 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Theiss satisfied his burden of showing that the face of the record (i.e., the judgment and sentence) would demonstrate the alleged illegality in the sentence. Cf. Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045, 1051 n. 2 (Fla.2011) (“An appellate court should affirm the summary denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion whenever the appellate court’s review of the record establishes that the defendant did not satisfy the burden of showing entitlement to relief on the face of the rec *1292 ord.”). Nothing in the record on appeal refutes the facially sufficient claim. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings to consider appellant’s claim on the merits.

Reversed and Remanded.

WARNER, STEVENSON and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 So. 3d 1291, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 173, 2015 WL 71659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gabriel-theiss-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack