Knight v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Knight v. State

810 So. 2d 1014, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2366, 2002 WL 342062

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 2002

DocketNo. 4D01-3347

StatusPublished

This text of 810 So. 2d 1014 (Knight 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

Knight v. State, 810 So. 2d 1014, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2366, 2002 WL 342062 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

David Knight appeals the order summarily denying as untimely his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We reverse only as to Appellant’s first ground for relief and affirm the summary denial as to the remaining grounds of the motion without discussion.

Appellant’s first ground alleged that his habitual sentence was illegal because he lacked the requisite sequential convictions. After the trial court denied the instant motion, the Florida Supreme Court issued Bover v. State, 797 So.2d 1246 (Fla.2001). There, it held that “where the requisite predicate felonies essential to qualify a defendant for habituali-zation do not exist as a matter of law and that error is apparent from the face of the record, rule 3.800(a) can be used to correct the resulting habitual offender sentence.” Id. at 1247. When the requisite convictions do not exist, then a habitual sentence could not be imposed as a matter of law because such a sentence would be the “ ‘kind of punishment that no judge under the entire body of sentencing statutes could possibly inflict under any set of factual circumstances.’ ” Id. at 1250 (quoting Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173, 1181 (Fla.2001)). Such an erroneous habitualization may be corrected “so long as the error is apparent from the face of the record.” Id. at 1251.

The state agrees that this ground should be remanded for the trial court to reconsider as if it were filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a).

Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial only as to Appellant’s first ground for relief and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

GUNTHER, FARMER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

David Knight appeals the order summarily denying as untimely his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We reverse only as to Appellant’s first ground for relief and affirm the summary denial as to the remaining grounds of the motion without discussion.

Appellant’s first ground alleged that his habitual sentence was illegal because he lacked the requisite sequential convictions. After the trial court denied the instant motion, the Florida Supreme Court issued Bover v. State, 797 So.2d 1246 (Fla.2001). There, it held that “where the requisite predicate felonies essential to qualify a defendant for habituali-zation do not exist as a matter of law and that error is apparent from the face of the record, rule 3.800(a) can be used to correct the resulting habitual offender sentence.” Id. at 1247. When the requisite convictions do not exist, then a habitual sentence could not be imposed as a matter of law because such a sentence would be the “ ‘kind of punishment that no judge under the entire body of sentencing statutes could possibly inflict under any set of factual circumstances.’ ” Id. at 1250 (quoting Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173, 1181 (Fla.2001)). Such an erroneous habitualization may be corrected “so long as the error is apparent from the face of the record.” Id. at 1251.

The state agrees that this ground should be remanded for the trial court to reconsider as if it were filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a).

Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial only as to Appellant’s first ground for relief and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

GUNTHER, FARMER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

810 So. 2d 1014, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2366, 2002 WL 342062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knight-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack