Guilford v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Guilford v. State

88 So. 3d 998, 2012 WL 1759376, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7994

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 18, 2012

DocketNo. 2D11-4694

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 88 So. 3d 998 (Guilford 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

Guilford v. State, 88 So. 3d 998, 2012 WL 1759376, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7994 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRIS, Judge.

Stevon L. Guilford appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), in which he raised one claim of illegality in the sentencing process. We affirm.

Guilford claimed that in sentencing him to thirty years (the statutory maximum), the trial court erroneously took into account his failure to admit guilt and accept responsibility. The postconviction court denied this claim on the basis that it amounted to a challenge of the sentencing process, which cannot be raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Hankins v. State, 42 So.3d 871, 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

Although Guilford maintains that his claim could be resolved from the face of the record in accordance with rule 3.800(a), “[a]ny error in the court’s consideration of certain factors in imposing sentence is an error in the sentencing process.” Hannum v. State, 13 So.3d 132, 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). And as the postconviction court correctly concluded, “sentencing procedures are generally not a subject for review under rule 3.800(a).” Hankins, 42 So.3d at 872. Lastly, Guilford’s sentence — thirty years’ imprisonment on the first-degree felony of aggravated child abuse — is not illegal, and he does not present another claim that is cognizable under rule 3.800(a). See § 827.03(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). Therefore, the postconviction court correctly denied Guilford’s rule 3.800(a) motion.

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND and LaROSE, JJ„ Concur.

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

MORRIS, Judge.

Stevon L. Guilford appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), in which he raised one claim of illegality in the sentencing process. We affirm.

Guilford claimed that in sentencing him to thirty years (the statutory maximum), the trial court erroneously took into account his failure to admit guilt and accept responsibility. The postconviction court denied this claim on the basis that it amounted to a challenge of the sentencing process, which cannot be raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Hankins v. State, 42 So.3d 871, 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

Although Guilford maintains that his claim could be resolved from the face of the record in accordance with rule 3.800(a), “[a]ny error in the court’s consideration of certain factors in imposing sentence is an error in the sentencing process.” Hannum v. State, 13 So.3d 132, 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). And as the postconviction court correctly concluded, “sentencing procedures are generally not a subject for review under rule 3.800(a).” Hankins, 42 So.3d at 872. Lastly, Guilford’s sentence — thirty years’ imprisonment on the first-degree felony of aggravated child abuse — is not illegal, and he does not present another claim that is cognizable under rule 3.800(a). See § 827.03(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). Therefore, the postconviction court correctly denied Guilford’s rule 3.800(a) motion.

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND and LaROSE, JJ„ Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 So. 3d 998, 2012 WL 1759376, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guilford-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack