Henry Paul v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Henry Paul v. State

149 So. 3d 103, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 13675, 2014 WL 4327911

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 3, 2014

Docket4D14-647

StatusPublished

This text of 149 So. 3d 103 (Henry Paul 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

Henry Paul v. State, 149 So. 3d 103, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 13675, 2014 WL 4327911 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. Appellant claims that he received consecutive youthful offender sentences which exceed the six-year statutory cap and which are illegal under Allen v. State, 526 So.2d 69 (Fla.1988). He also claims that his written sentence is inconsistent with the court’s oral pronouncement in some unspecified way. We conclude that “review of the record establishes that the defendant did not satisfy the burden of showing entitlement to relief on the face of the record.” Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045, 1051 n. 2 (Fla.2011); see also Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600, 604 (Fla.2007) (holding that the movant has the burden of demonstrating an entitlement to relief in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding).

Affirmance is without prejudice for appellant to file a sworn and sufficient rule 3.850 motion within the time remaining under the rule or to file a' rule 3.800(a) motion that demonstrates an entitlement to relief from the face of the record.

WARNER, MAY and FORST, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. Appellant claims that he received consecutive youthful offender sentences which exceed the six-year statutory cap and which are illegal under Allen v. State, 526 So.2d 69 (Fla.1988). He also claims that his written sentence is inconsistent with the court’s oral pronouncement in some unspecified way. We conclude that “review of the record establishes that the defendant did not satisfy the burden of showing entitlement to relief on the face of the record.” Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045, 1051 n. 2 (Fla.2011); see also Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600, 604 (Fla.2007) (holding that the movant has the burden of demonstrating an entitlement to relief in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding).

Affirmance is without prejudice for appellant to file a sworn and sufficient rule 3.850 motion within the time remaining under the rule or to file a' rule 3.800(a) motion that demonstrates an entitlement to relief from the face of the record.

WARNER, MAY and FORST, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 So. 3d 103, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 13675, 2014 WL 4327911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-paul-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack