Robert Anderson v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Robert Anderson v. State of Florida

188 So. 3d 868, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 16570, 2015 WL 6738818

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 4, 2015

Docket4D15-2647

StatusPublished

This text of 188 So. 3d 868 (Robert Anderson v. State of Florida) 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

Robert Anderson v. State of Florida, 188 So. 3d 868, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 16570, 2015 WL 6738818 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Robert Anderson appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We write only to address Anderson’s claim that his life sentence as a habitual felony offender is illegal under Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 267 (Fla.1992), because the resentencing judge mistakenly believed she had no discretion to decline to impose a life sentence. See Johnson v. State, 9 So.3d 640, 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). We find the trial court erred in concluding that this claim was raised in a previous Rule 3.800(a) motion. Regardless, we affirm because it is not clear from the record that the judge believed the life sentence was mandatory. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) (a defendant is entitled to relief only where “the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to *869 that relief’). We find no error in the trial court’s denial of Anderson’s other claims.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Robert Anderson appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We write only to address Anderson’s claim that his life sentence as a habitual felony offender is illegal under Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 267 (Fla.1992), because the resentencing judge mistakenly believed she had no discretion to decline to impose a life sentence. See Johnson v. State, 9 So.3d 640, 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). We find the trial court erred in concluding that this claim was raised in a previous Rule 3.800(a) motion. Regardless, we affirm because it is not clear from the record that the judge believed the life sentence was mandatory. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) (a defendant is entitled to relief only where “the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to *869 that relief’). We find no error in the trial court’s denial of Anderson’s other claims.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 So. 3d 868, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 16570, 2015 WL 6738818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-anderson-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack