Tillman v. State

805 So. 2d 867, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12868, 2001 WL 1041051
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Tillman v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 807 So. 2d 106
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 12, 2001·No. No. 2D01-1296·Published

Opinion

GREEN, Acting Chief Judge.

Thomas L. Tillman appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.800(a). He claims that he is entitled to be resentenced pursuant to the ruling in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). Because the sentence he received is not a departure under the 1994 guidelines, he is not entitled to be resentenced. We affirm the trial court’s order without prejudice to Tillman’s right to file a timely and facially sufficient motion challenging the voluntariness of his plea pursuant to rule 3.850, if he chooses to do so. See Murphy v. State, 773 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (en banc).

Additionally, Tillman raised several claims in his initial brief which were not presented to the trial court in the instant motion to correct illegal sentence. Thus, this affirmance is without prejudice to Tillman’s right to raise these additional claims in a motion properly filed with the trial court.

Affirmed.

STRINGER and DAVIS, JJ, Concur.

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

Tillman v. State, 805 So. 2d 867, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12868, 2001 WL 1041051 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

805 So. 2d 867 (Tillman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Murphy v. State
773 So. 2d 1174 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Heggs v. State
759 So. 2d 620 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)