McDuffie v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McDuffie v. State

63 So. 3d 824, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 6428, 2011 WL 1705596

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 6, 2011

Docket5D11-661

StatusPublished

This text of 63 So. 3d 824 (McDuffie 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

McDuffie v. State, 63 So. 3d 824, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 6428, 2011 WL 1705596 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Appellant, Darrell D. McDuffie, challenges the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence, which he filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court denied the 'motion as successive, but its order did not include record attachments showing the motion was, in fact, successive. McDuffie argues this deficiency mandates reversal of the order denying his motion. Ordinarily, we would be inclined to agree. See Romeo v. State, 965 So.2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). However, reversal is not warranted in this case because it is clear from the face of the motion that the grounds claimed therein are without merit as a matter of law. There is no requirement that a court make a finding that a habitual felony offender sentence is necessary for the protection of the public before imposing it. See § 775.084(3)(a)6., Fla. Stat. (2000). Therefore, the order denying McDuffie’s rule 3.800(a) motion is affirmed, even though the trial court was remiss in failing to include record attachments to support its conclusion that the motion was successive.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, ORFINGER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Appellant, Darrell D. McDuffie, challenges the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence, which he filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court denied the 'motion as successive, but its order did not include record attachments showing the motion was, in fact, successive. McDuffie argues this deficiency mandates reversal of the order denying his motion. Ordinarily, we would be inclined to agree. See Romeo v. State, 965 So.2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). However, reversal is not warranted in this case because it is clear from the face of the motion that the grounds claimed therein are without merit as a matter of law. There is no requirement that a court make a finding that a habitual felony offender sentence is necessary for the protection of the public before imposing it. See § 775.084(3)(a)6., Fla. Stat. (2000). Therefore, the order denying McDuffie’s rule 3.800(a) motion is affirmed, even though the trial court was remiss in failing to include record attachments to support its conclusion that the motion was successive.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, ORFINGER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 So. 3d 824, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 6428, 2011 WL 1705596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcduffie-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack