Scheffer v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Scheffer v. State

893 So. 2d 698, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1663, 2005 WL 387672

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 18, 2005

DocketNo. 5D04-3453

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 893 So. 2d 698 (Scheffer 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

Scheffer v. State, 893 So. 2d 698, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1663, 2005 WL 387672 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, J.

Appellant, Neal A. Scheffer [“Scheffer”], appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion. Scheffer alleges that he pled guilty to burglary of a dwelling and was orally sentenced to twenty months on or about February 2, 2003, but his judgment and sentence indicates that he was sentenced to twenty-four months.

The trial court denied the motion without explanation or attaching any records. However, the State’s response filed below indicates that Scheffer made the same claim in a prior rule 3.800(a) motion. According to the State’s response below, that motion was denied because the record showed that the court imposed a sentence of twenty-four months, which was the agreed sentence.

This court can take judicial notice of its own records. See Sinclair v. State, 853 So.2d 551, 552 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Fyler v. State, 852 So.2d 442, 443 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 860 So.2d 977 (Fla.2003). Our records contain a copy of Scheffer’s plea and sentencing transcript from the prior appeal. That transcript shows clearly that the trial court orally sentenced Scheffer to “two years.” None of the other dialogue described in his brief involving “twenty months” appears. This issue is conclusively resolved against Scheffer.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, C.J., and PLEUS, J., concur.

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

GRIFFIN, J.

Appellant, Neal A. Scheffer [“Scheffer”], appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion. Scheffer alleges that he pled guilty to burglary of a dwelling and was orally sentenced to twenty months on or about February 2, 2003, but his judgment and sentence indicates that he was sentenced to twenty-four months.

The trial court denied the motion without explanation or attaching any records. However, the State’s response filed below indicates that Scheffer made the same claim in a prior rule 3.800(a) motion. According to the State’s response below, that motion was denied because the record showed that the court imposed a sentence of twenty-four months, which was the agreed sentence.

This court can take judicial notice of its own records. See Sinclair v. State, 853 So.2d 551, 552 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Fyler v. State, 852 So.2d 442, 443 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 860 So.2d 977 (Fla.2003). Our records contain a copy of Scheffer’s plea and sentencing transcript from the prior appeal. That transcript shows clearly that the trial court orally sentenced Scheffer to “two years.” None of the other dialogue described in his brief involving “twenty months” appears. This issue is conclusively resolved against Scheffer.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, C.J., and PLEUS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

893 So. 2d 698, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1663, 2005 WL 387672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scheffer-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack