Lindermann v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lindermann v. State

801 So. 2d 231, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17210, 2001 WL 1557834

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 7, 2001

DocketNo. 1D01-0026

StatusPublished

This text of 801 So. 2d 231 (Lindermann 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

Lindermann v. State, 801 So. 2d 231, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17210, 2001 WL 1557834 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order of the trial court summarily denying his claim, brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), that alleged he is entitled to relief under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). The appellant committed his crime on July 12, 1996, which is during the time period that the 1995 guidelines were unconstitutional. See Trapp v. State, 760 So.2d 924 (Fla.2000). The record on appeal reveals that the appellant pled “straight up,” rather than to a negotiated term of years, and that his guidelines [232]*232sentence is greater than that allowed under the 1994 guidelines. It thus appears that the appellant is entitled to resentenc-ing in accordance with the 1994 guidelines. See Trotter v. State, 774 So.2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the appellant’s motion to correct his illegal sentence and remand for the trial court either to attach portions of the record conclusively establishing that the appellant is entitled to no relief or to grant the requested relief.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ALLEN, C.J., MINER and DAVIS, 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 of the trial court summarily denying his claim, brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), that alleged he is entitled to relief under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). The appellant committed his crime on July 12, 1996, which is during the time period that the 1995 guidelines were unconstitutional. See Trapp v. State, 760 So.2d 924 (Fla.2000). The record on appeal reveals that the appellant pled “straight up,” rather than to a negotiated term of years, and that his guidelines [232]*232sentence is greater than that allowed under the 1994 guidelines. It thus appears that the appellant is entitled to resentenc-ing in accordance with the 1994 guidelines. See Trotter v. State, 774 So.2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the appellant’s motion to correct his illegal sentence and remand for the trial court either to attach portions of the record conclusively establishing that the appellant is entitled to no relief or to grant the requested relief.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ALLEN, C.J., MINER and DAVIS, JJ„ Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

801 So. 2d 231, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17210, 2001 WL 1557834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindermann-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack