Murph v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Murph v. State

921 So. 2d 654, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 20212, 2005 WL 3534438

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 28, 2005

DocketNo. 2D05-2993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 921 So. 2d 654 (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, 921 So. 2d 654, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 20212, 2005 WL 3534438 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIS, 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 violent career criminal sentence is illegal because he does not have the requisite prior convictions. See § 775.084(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1999). This claim is cognizable in a motion to correct illegal sentence. See Cook v. State, 816 So.2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Thus, the postconviction court erred in denying Murph’s motion without addressing this claim. We therefore reverse the postconviction court’s order as it relates to Murph’s claim that he did not have the requisite prior convictions to qualify for violent career criminal sanctions and remand for further proceedings. We affirm the postconviction court’s order in all other respects.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

KELLY and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

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

DAVIS, 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 violent career criminal sentence is illegal because he does not have the requisite prior convictions. See § 775.084(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1999). This claim is cognizable in a motion to correct illegal sentence. See Cook v. State, 816 So.2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Thus, the postconviction court erred in denying Murph’s motion without addressing this claim. We therefore reverse the postconviction court’s order as it relates to Murph’s claim that he did not have the requisite prior convictions to qualify for violent career criminal sanctions and remand for further proceedings. We affirm the postconviction court’s order in all other respects.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

KELLY and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

921 So. 2d 654, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 20212, 2005 WL 3534438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murph-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack