Ivory v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ivory v. State

806 So. 2d 546, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17758, 2001 WL 1598779

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 17, 2001

DocketNo. 1D00-4468

StatusPublished

This text of 806 So. 2d 546 (Ivory 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

Ivory v. State, 806 So. 2d 546, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17758, 2001 WL 1598779 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order denying his motion to correct his illegal sentence. The appellant alleged that he is entitled to resentencing under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). His of[547]*547fense date of October 17, 1995, falls within the window period for claims under Heggs. See Trapp v. State, 760 So.2d 924 (Fla. 2000). The appellant alleged also that the sentence he received was greater than that available under the 1994 guidelines. The trial court denied the appellant’s motion, but failed to attach documents to the record to support its reasoning. Therefore, we REVERSE and REMAND to the trial court to attach portions of the record which conclusively refute the appellant’s claim or to reconsider the merits of the claim that he is entitled to relief under Heggs.

MINER, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order denying his motion to correct his illegal sentence. The appellant alleged that he is entitled to resentencing under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). His of[547]*547fense date of October 17, 1995, falls within the window period for claims under Heggs. See Trapp v. State, 760 So.2d 924 (Fla. 2000). The appellant alleged also that the sentence he received was greater than that available under the 1994 guidelines. The trial court denied the appellant’s motion, but failed to attach documents to the record to support its reasoning. Therefore, we REVERSE and REMAND to the trial court to attach portions of the record which conclusively refute the appellant’s claim or to reconsider the merits of the claim that he is entitled to relief under Heggs.

MINER, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

806 So. 2d 546, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17758, 2001 WL 1598779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ivory-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack