Poitier v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Poitier v. State

967 So. 2d 1017, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 17252, 2007 WL 3170524

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 31, 2007·No. No. 4D07-3305·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant filed a motion to correct illegal sentence claiming he did not qualify for a habitual felony offender enhancement due to a lack of sequential convictions. The lower court denied appellant’s motion, citing to records that conclusively refuted the allegation. However, the records were merely cited and not attached. As such, we are compelled to reverse and remand for attachment of those records. See Bennett v. State, 946 So.2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (reversing the denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion because the order on appeal did not include record attachments that refuted the allegations of the motion).

SHAHOOD, C.J., GUNTHER and MAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant filed a motion to correct illegal sentence claiming he did not qualify for a habitual felony offender enhancement due to a lack of sequential convictions. The lower court denied appellant’s motion, citing to records that conclusively refuted the allegation. However, the records were merely cited and not attached. As such, we are compelled to reverse and remand for attachment of those records. See Bennett v. State, 946 So.2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (reversing the denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion because the order on appeal did not include record attachments that refuted the allegations of the motion).

SHAHOOD, C.J., GUNTHER and MAY, JJ., concur.

Poitier v. State, 967 So. 2d 1017, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 17252, 2007 WL 3170524 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

967 So. 2d 1017 (Poitier v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related