Roosa v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Roosa v. State

192 So. 3d 1281, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9033, 2016 WL 3223888

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 13, 2016

DocketNo. 1D16-0127

StatusPublished

This text of 192 So. 3d 1281 (Roosa 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

Roosa v. State, 192 So. 3d 1281, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9033, 2016 WL 3223888 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Charles Roosa appeals an order denying his rule 3.800(a) motion, which challenged his consecutive sentences for two counts of resisting an officer with violence. As the State concedes, the trial court should have treated the motion as having been-filed pursuant to rule 3.850. Based on this concession, and having found that Appellant presented a facially sufficient rule 3.850 claim that his two separate convictions violate double jeopardy, see Jones v. State, 711 So.2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), we reverse and remand for the trial court to treat the motion as having been timely filed pursuant to rule 3.850, and to attach records conclusively refuting it, hold an evidentiary hearing, or vacate one of the convictions for resisting an officer with violence. See Spencer v. State, 805 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ROWE, OSTERHAUS, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Charles Roosa appeals an order denying his rule 3.800(a) motion, which challenged his consecutive sentences for two counts of resisting an officer with violence. As the State concedes, the trial court should have treated the motion as having been-filed pursuant to rule 3.850. Based on this concession, and having found that Appellant presented a facially sufficient rule 3.850 claim that his two separate convictions violate double jeopardy, see Jones v. State, 711 So.2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), we reverse and remand for the trial court to treat the motion as having been timely filed pursuant to rule 3.850, and to attach records conclusively refuting it, hold an evidentiary hearing, or vacate one of the convictions for resisting an officer with violence. See Spencer v. State, 805 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ROWE, OSTERHAUS, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 So. 3d 1281, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9033, 2016 WL 3223888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roosa-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack