Pierre v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pierre v. State

184 So. 3d 592, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 1008, 2016 WL 313982

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 27, 2016

DocketNo. 3D15-1637

StatusPublished

This text of 184 So. 3d 592 (Pierre 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

Pierre v. State, 184 So. 3d 592, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 1008, 2016 WL 313982 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) (providing that “[a] court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it ... when it is affirmatively alleged that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to that relief’); John[593]*593son v. State, 60 So.3d 1045 (Fla.2011) (recognizing that rule 3.800(a) places the burden on the movant to demonstrate an entitlement to relief on the face of the record); Burgess v. State, 831 So.2d 137 (Fla.2002) (acknowledging that, as a general rule, resolving a claim alleging illegal sentences were imposed arising from a single criminal episode requires an eviden-tiary hearing, and therefore must be raised in a motion under rule 3.850; if raised in a motion under 3.800(a), such a claim must be capable of being resolved as a matter of law, without an evidentiary determination, and on the face of the existing court record); Taylor v. State, 969 So.2d 489 (Fla. 5th DCA.2007) (holding that, to plead a facially sufficient claim that illegal sentences were imposed arising from a single criminal episode, movant must, inter alia, identify with particularity the non-hearsay record evidence demonstrating his entitlement to relief); Lauramore v. State, 949 So.2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (same); Speas v. State, 887 So.2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (same).

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) (providing that “[a] court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it ... when it is affirmatively alleged that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to that relief’); John[593]*593son v. State, 60 So.3d 1045 (Fla.2011) (recognizing that rule 3.800(a) places the burden on the movant to demonstrate an entitlement to relief on the face of the record); Burgess v. State, 831 So.2d 137 (Fla.2002) (acknowledging that, as a general rule, resolving a claim alleging illegal sentences were imposed arising from a single criminal episode requires an eviden-tiary hearing, and therefore must be raised in a motion under rule 3.850; if raised in a motion under 3.800(a), such a claim must be capable of being resolved as a matter of law, without an evidentiary determination, and on the face of the existing court record); Taylor v. State, 969 So.2d 489 (Fla. 5th DCA.2007) (holding that, to plead a facially sufficient claim that illegal sentences were imposed arising from a single criminal episode, movant must, inter alia, identify with particularity the non-hearsay record evidence demonstrating his entitlement to relief); Lauramore v. State, 949 So.2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (same); Speas v. State, 887 So.2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (same).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 So. 3d 592, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 1008, 2016 WL 313982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierre-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack