Stephens v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stephens v. State

478 So. 2d 419, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2479, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16642

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 5, 1985

DocketNo. 85-2089

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 478 So. 2d 419 (Stephens 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

Stephens v. State, 478 So. 2d 419, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2479, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16642 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Nathaniel Stephens appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. His motion challenges the legality of the life sentence imposed by the trial court following a jury verdict finding Stephens guilty of armed robbery without a firearm. Stephens maintains that he should receive a sentence no greater than the maximum allowed by law for an unarmed robbery, rather than the sentence he received for armed robbery.

The trial court summarily denied Stephen’s motion on the ground that the issue should have been raised in the motion Stephens filed subsequent to the affirmance of his conviction in Stephens v. State, 445 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). We affirmed the summary denial of the prior motion in Stephens v. State, 467 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

We reverse the trial court’s summary denial of Stephen’s second motion. Successive 3.850 motions are appropriate when they state substantially new legal grounds. McCrae v. State, 437 So.2d 1388 (Fla.1983); Nova v. State, 439 So.2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev’d on other grounds, 462 So.2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Furthermore, a fundamental error, such as the imposition of an unlawful sentence, may be raised for the first time in a Rule 3.850 motion notwithstanding the fact that it could have been raised on direct appeal. Nova, 439 So.2d at 261; Reynolds v. State, 429 So.2d 1331 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). The record before us does not show conclusively that Stephens is entitled to no relief. Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(g). By failing to consider the merits of Stephen’s claim, the trial court made no determination as to whether Stephen’s conviction was for an armed robbery or for an unarmed robbery. We therefore reverse and remand the cause for an evidentiary hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Nathaniel Stephens appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. His motion challenges the legality of the life sentence imposed by the trial court following a jury verdict finding Stephens guilty of armed robbery without a firearm. Stephens maintains that he should receive a sentence no greater than the maximum allowed by law for an unarmed robbery, rather than the sentence he received for armed robbery.

The trial court summarily denied Stephen’s motion on the ground that the issue should have been raised in the motion Stephens filed subsequent to the affirmance of his conviction in Stephens v. State, 445 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). We affirmed the summary denial of the prior motion in Stephens v. State, 467 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

We reverse the trial court’s summary denial of Stephen’s second motion. Successive 3.850 motions are appropriate when they state substantially new legal grounds. McCrae v. State, 437 So.2d 1388 (Fla.1983); Nova v. State, 439 So.2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev’d on other grounds, 462 So.2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Furthermore, a fundamental error, such as the imposition of an unlawful sentence, may be raised for the first time in a Rule 3.850 motion notwithstanding the fact that it could have been raised on direct appeal. Nova, 439 So.2d at 261; Reynolds v. State, 429 So.2d 1331 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). The record before us does not show conclusively that Stephens is entitled to no relief. Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(g). By failing to consider the merits of Stephen’s claim, the trial court made no determination as to whether Stephen’s conviction was for an armed robbery or for an unarmed robbery. We therefore reverse and remand the cause for an evidentiary hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 So. 2d 419, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2479, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephens-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack