Salter v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Salter v. State

804 So. 2d 333, 2001 WL 1712503

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 18, 2001

DocketNo. 1D00-4819

StatusPublished

This text of 804 So. 2d 333 (Salter 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

Salter v. State, 804 So. 2d 333, 2001 WL 1712503 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order denying his motion to correct his illegal sentence. The appellant alleged that he is entitled to resentencing under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). His offense date of November 9, 1995, falls within the window period for claims under Heggs. See Trapp v. State, 760 So.2d 924 (Fla.2000). The appellant alleged also that the sentence he received was greater than that available under the 1994 guidelines. The trial court denied the appellant’s motion, but failed to attach documents to the record to support its reasoning. Because the appellant has stated a facially sufficient claim for relief, see Bull v. State, 782 So.2d 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), we REVERSE AND REMAND to the trial court to attach portions of the record which conclusively refute the appellant’s claim or to reconsider the merits of the claim.

ERVIN, BARFIELD, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order denying his motion to correct his illegal sentence. The appellant alleged that he is entitled to resentencing under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). His offense date of November 9, 1995, falls within the window period for claims under Heggs. See Trapp v. State, 760 So.2d 924 (Fla.2000). The appellant alleged also that the sentence he received was greater than that available under the 1994 guidelines. The trial court denied the appellant’s motion, but failed to attach documents to the record to support its reasoning. Because the appellant has stated a facially sufficient claim for relief, see Bull v. State, 782 So.2d 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), we REVERSE AND REMAND to the trial court to attach portions of the record which conclusively refute the appellant’s claim or to reconsider the merits of the claim.

ERVIN, BARFIELD, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

804 So. 2d 333, 2001 WL 1712503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salter-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack