Grimmage v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Grimmage v. State

802 So. 2d 360, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15115, 2001 WL 1295498

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 26, 2001

DocketNo. 2D01-2380

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 802 So. 2d 360 (Grimmage 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

Grimmage v. State, 802 So. 2d 360, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15115, 2001 WL 1295498 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

GREEN, Judge.

Randy L. Grimmage appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Grimmage alleged that he might not qualify to be sentenced as a habitual felony offender. The trial court denied the claim finding that it was not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. We disagree. However, we affirm because we conclude that Grim-mage’s claim is facially insufficient since he did not specifically allege that he lacked the requisite qualifying convictions to be sentenced as a habitual felony offender. See, e.g., Lee v. State, 731 So.2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding habitual felony offender sentence is illegal when defendant lacks the required qualifying offenses). This af-firmance is without prejudice to Grim-mage’s right to file a facially sufficient motion, if he is able to do so.

We affirm Grimmage’s remaining claims without comment.

Affirmed.

BLUE, C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.

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

GREEN, Judge.

Randy L. Grimmage appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Grimmage alleged that he might not qualify to be sentenced as a habitual felony offender. The trial court denied the claim finding that it was not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. We disagree. However, we affirm because we conclude that Grim-mage’s claim is facially insufficient since he did not specifically allege that he lacked the requisite qualifying convictions to be sentenced as a habitual felony offender. See, e.g., Lee v. State, 731 So.2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding habitual felony offender sentence is illegal when defendant lacks the required qualifying offenses). This af-firmance is without prejudice to Grim-mage’s right to file a facially sufficient motion, if he is able to do so.

We affirm Grimmage’s remaining claims without comment.

Affirmed.

BLUE, C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

802 So. 2d 360, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15115, 2001 WL 1295498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grimmage-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack