Rivera v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rivera v. State

949 So. 2d 1090, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 1475, 2007 WL 403281

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 7, 2007

DocketNo. 3D06-2759

StatusPublished

This text of 949 So. 2d 1090 (Rivera 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

Rivera v. State, 949 So. 2d 1090, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 1475, 2007 WL 403281 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Wilfredo Rivera appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The defendant was sentenced to life in prison. In his motion to correct illegal sentence, he alleges that the trial court prepared a sentencing guideline scoresheet, but then failed to apply a guideline sentence to the defendant. The defendant has raised a facially sufficient claim for rule 3.800(a) relief that the trial court, by summarily denying the motion, has failed to conclusively refute. Consequently, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. On remand, if the trial court again enters an order summarily denying the post-convic-tiori motion, the trial court shall attach written portions of the record conclusively refuting the defendant’s claim. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D) (requiring reversal by this court unless the record shows conclusively that the defendant is entitled to no relief).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

Wilfredo Rivera appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The defendant was sentenced to life in prison. In his motion to correct illegal sentence, he alleges that the trial court prepared a sentencing guideline scoresheet, but then failed to apply a guideline sentence to the defendant. The defendant has raised a facially sufficient claim for rule 3.800(a) relief that the trial court, by summarily denying the motion, has failed to conclusively refute. Consequently, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. On remand, if the trial court again enters an order summarily denying the post-convic-tiori motion, the trial court shall attach written portions of the record conclusively refuting the defendant’s claim. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D) (requiring reversal by this court unless the record shows conclusively that the defendant is entitled to no relief).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

949 So. 2d 1090, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 1475, 2007 WL 403281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.