Roche v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Roche v. State

681 So. 2d 1210, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11413, 1996 WL 631565

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 1, 1996

DocketNo. 96-2498

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 681 So. 2d 1210 (Roche 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

Roche v. State, 681 So. 2d 1210, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11413, 1996 WL 631565 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

W. SHARP, Judge.

Roche appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion. We affirm.

Roche claims his scoresheet was improperly calculated and that scoring of two convictions violated his double jeopardy rights. These are not viable claims sufficient to establish an “illegal sentence” pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). These kinds of claims cannot be determined from the face of the record because they will require an evidentiary hearing to resolve, the issues raised. Thus, the trial court properly denied the rule 3.800(a) motion in this case. See Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193 (Fla.1995); State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983 (Fla.1995); Raley v. State, 675 So.2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), appeal dismissed, 678 So.2d 1287 (Fla.1996).

AFFIRMED.

PETERSON, C.J., and GOSHORN, J., concur.

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

W. SHARP, Judge.

Roche appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion. We affirm.

Roche claims his scoresheet was improperly calculated and that scoring of two convictions violated his double jeopardy rights. These are not viable claims sufficient to establish an “illegal sentence” pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). These kinds of claims cannot be determined from the face of the record because they will require an evidentiary hearing to resolve, the issues raised. Thus, the trial court properly denied the rule 3.800(a) motion in this case. See Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193 (Fla.1995); State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983 (Fla.1995); Raley v. State, 675 So.2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), appeal dismissed, 678 So.2d 1287 (Fla.1996).

AFFIRMED.

PETERSON, C.J., and GOSHORN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

681 So. 2d 1210, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11413, 1996 WL 631565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roche-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

W. SHARP, Judge.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack