Parrish v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Parrish v. State

752 So. 2d 38, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 793, 2000 WL 94060

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 31, 2000

DocketNo. 1D99-2855

StatusPublished

This text of 752 So. 2d 38 (Parrish 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

Parrish v. State, 752 So. 2d 38, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 793, 2000 WL 94060 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed a motion for post conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, asserting an error in his sentencing guidelines score sheet, in that he had been assessed points for offenses he alleged should not have been considered due to the passage of ten consecutive years without activity in his criminal record. The circuit court denied the motion, stating in the order that, as a matter of fact, there had not been ten consecutive years of inactivity, citing a December, 1994, arrest date. The trial court failed to attach to the order portions of the record supporting that finding and show[39]*39ing conclusively that appellant is not entitled to relief. Therefore, we reverse and remand for attachment of such documentation or an evidentiary hearing. Since the order denying appellant’s motion to disqualify the state attorney was predicated in part on the denial of the 3.850 motion, we also reverse that order and remand for further consistent proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., and SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed a motion for post conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, asserting an error in his sentencing guidelines score sheet, in that he had been assessed points for offenses he alleged should not have been considered due to the passage of ten consecutive years without activity in his criminal record. The circuit court denied the motion, stating in the order that, as a matter of fact, there had not been ten consecutive years of inactivity, citing a December, 1994, arrest date. The trial court failed to attach to the order portions of the record supporting that finding and show[39]*39ing conclusively that appellant is not entitled to relief. Therefore, we reverse and remand for attachment of such documentation or an evidentiary hearing. Since the order denying appellant’s motion to disqualify the state attorney was predicated in part on the denial of the 3.850 motion, we also reverse that order and remand for further consistent proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., and SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

752 So. 2d 38, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 793, 2000 WL 94060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parrish-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.