Murph v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Murph v. State

886 So. 2d 430, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 17328, 2004 WL 2599920

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 17, 2004

DocketNo. 2D04-2085

StatusPublished

This text of 886 So. 2d 430 (Murph 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

Murph v. State, 886 So. 2d 430, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 17328, 2004 WL 2599920 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

FULMER, Judge.

Ernest C. Murph appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Murph claims his sentence violates double jeopardy because the enhancement of his sentence contains two punishments for one criminal episode. This claim is facially insufficient because Murph failed to explain the enhancement of his sentence and the two punishments. See Powell v. State, 841 So.2d 580, 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (affirming the denial of a rule 3.800(a) claim where the defendant failed to explain the basis of his claim). A motion to correct illegal sentence that does not assert any facts or law to support a claim for relief is facially insufficient. Williams v. State, 773 So.2d 1176, 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). As to this claim, we affirm without prejudice to any right Murph may have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion. We affirm the denial of Murph’s remaining claims without comment.

Affirmed.

SALCINES and VILLANTI, JJ„ concur.

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

FULMER, Judge.

Ernest C. Murph appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Murph claims his sentence violates double jeopardy because the enhancement of his sentence contains two punishments for one criminal episode. This claim is facially insufficient because Murph failed to explain the enhancement of his sentence and the two punishments. See Powell v. State, 841 So.2d 580, 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (affirming the denial of a rule 3.800(a) claim where the defendant failed to explain the basis of his claim). A motion to correct illegal sentence that does not assert any facts or law to support a claim for relief is facially insufficient. Williams v. State, 773 So.2d 1176, 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). As to this claim, we affirm without prejudice to any right Murph may have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion. We affirm the denial of Murph’s remaining claims without comment.

Affirmed.

SALCINES and VILLANTI, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

886 So. 2d 430, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 17328, 2004 WL 2599920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murph-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack