Gassaway v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gassaway v. State

728 So. 2d 285, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1147, 1999 WL 69935

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 10, 1999

DocketNo. 98-03403

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 728 So. 2d 285 (Gassaway 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

Gassaway v. State, 728 So. 2d 285, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1147, 1999 WL 69935 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael Gassaway appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct illegal [286]*286sentences filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the trial court’s ruling as to grounds one through four of Gassaway’s motion; however, we reverse and remand for further proceedings as to ground five. That ground raises allegations of excessive sentences, a matter cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. Because this claim is facially sufficient and the trial court’s order did not address this issue or attach any documentation refuting Gassaway’s claim, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. In addition to the allegations made by Gassaway, the trial court’s attention is directed to Gassaway v. State, 400 So.2d 1324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of grounds one through four. We reverse the denial of ground five and remand with directions that it be addressed on its merits.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for consideration of ground five.

BLUE, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and GREEN, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Michael Gassaway appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct illegal [286]*286sentences filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the trial court’s ruling as to grounds one through four of Gassaway’s motion; however, we reverse and remand for further proceedings as to ground five. That ground raises allegations of excessive sentences, a matter cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. Because this claim is facially sufficient and the trial court’s order did not address this issue or attach any documentation refuting Gassaway’s claim, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. In addition to the allegations made by Gassaway, the trial court’s attention is directed to Gassaway v. State, 400 So.2d 1324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of grounds one through four. We reverse the denial of ground five and remand with directions that it be addressed on its merits.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for consideration of ground five.

BLUE, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and GREEN, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

728 So. 2d 285, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1147, 1999 WL 69935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gassaway-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack