Stewart v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stewart v. State

948 So. 2d 870, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 1467, 2007 WL 403443

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 7, 2007

DocketNo. 3D06-2915

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 948 So. 2d 870 (Stewart 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

Stewart v. State, 948 So. 2d 870, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 1467, 2007 WL 403443 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Stewart appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, the defendant alleges that the trial court erred in relying on certain predicate convictions to support adjudicating the defendant as a habitual felony offender. The defendant has raised a facially sufficient claim for rule 3.800(a) relief that the trial court, by summarily denying the motion, has failed to conclusively refute. Consequently, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. On remand, if the trial court again enters an order summarily denying the post-conviction motion, the trial court shall attach written portions of the record conclusively refuting the defendant’s claim. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D) (requiring reversal by this court unless the record shows conclusively that the defendant is entitled to no relief).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Stewart appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, the defendant alleges that the trial court erred in relying on certain predicate convictions to support adjudicating the defendant as a habitual felony offender. The defendant has raised a facially sufficient claim for rule 3.800(a) relief that the trial court, by summarily denying the motion, has failed to conclusively refute. Consequently, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. On remand, if the trial court again enters an order summarily denying the post-conviction motion, the trial court shall attach written portions of the record conclusively refuting the defendant’s claim. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D) (requiring reversal by this court unless the record shows conclusively that the defendant is entitled to no relief).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

948 So. 2d 870, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 1467, 2007 WL 403443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack