Gandy v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gandy v. State

239 So. 3d 1288

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 4, 2018

DocketCase No. 2D17–3133

StatusPublished

This text of 239 So. 3d 1288 (Gandy 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

Gandy v. State, 239 So. 3d 1288 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Ezekiel Gandy filed a motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), claiming that his Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet was inaccurate because its prior record section incorrectly listed offenses for which he had not been convicted. The postconviction court denied the motion because it would have required an evidentiary hearing. However, Gandy's claim would be cognizable in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and it would be timely as such. See Thomas v. State, 149 So.3d 159, 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to allow Gandy the opportunity to raise the claim in a facially sufficient motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, if he has not already done so. See id.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

SILBERMAN and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.

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

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Ezekiel Gandy filed a motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), claiming that his Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet was inaccurate because its prior record section incorrectly listed offenses for which he had not been convicted. The postconviction court denied the motion because it would have required an evidentiary hearing. However, Gandy's claim would be cognizable in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and it would be timely as such. See Thomas v. State, 149 So.3d 159, 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to allow Gandy the opportunity to raise the claim in a facially sufficient motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, if he has not already done so. See id.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

SILBERMAN and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 So. 3d 1288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gandy-v-state-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack