Tyler v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tyler v. State

927 So. 2d 194, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 6157, 2006 WL 1114988

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 28, 2006

DocketNo. 2D05-3817

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 927 So. 2d 194 (Tyler 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

Tyler v. State, 927 So. 2d 194, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 6157, 2006 WL 1114988 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

WALLACE, Judge.

Gilbert G. Tyler appeals the postconviction court’s denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Mr. Tyler claims that amendments made by the trial court to his sentences resulted in the imposition of harsher sentences than were contemplated by his plea agreement or imposed at sentencing. The postconviction court found that the amendments to Mr. Tyler’s sentences merely corrected clerical errors and that his sentences were not increased by the amendments. Accordingly, the postconviction court denied the motion.

The postconviction court’s findings may be correct. Unfortunately, the postconviction court failed to attach to its order a copy of the transcript of the change of plea and sentencing hearing to conclusively refute Mr. Tyler’s claims. Consequently, we are compelled to reverse the postconviction court’s order and remand for further proceedings. See Fla. RApp. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D); Spears v. State, 920 So.2d 187, 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“The burden [195]*195is on the postconviction court to attach portions of the record refuting the rule 3.800(a) claim.”). If the postconviction court again denies Mr. Tyler’s motion, it shall attach to its order those portions of the record that conclusively refute his claims.

Reversed and remanded.

WHATLEY and SILBERMAN, JJ., concur.

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

WALLACE, Judge.

Gilbert G. Tyler appeals the postconviction court’s denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Mr. Tyler claims that amendments made by the trial court to his sentences resulted in the imposition of harsher sentences than were contemplated by his plea agreement or imposed at sentencing. The postconviction court found that the amendments to Mr. Tyler’s sentences merely corrected clerical errors and that his sentences were not increased by the amendments. Accordingly, the postconviction court denied the motion.

The postconviction court’s findings may be correct. Unfortunately, the postconviction court failed to attach to its order a copy of the transcript of the change of plea and sentencing hearing to conclusively refute Mr. Tyler’s claims. Consequently, we are compelled to reverse the postconviction court’s order and remand for further proceedings. See Fla. RApp. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D); Spears v. State, 920 So.2d 187, 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“The burden [195]*195is on the postconviction court to attach portions of the record refuting the rule 3.800(a) claim.”). If the postconviction court again denies Mr. Tyler’s motion, it shall attach to its order those portions of the record that conclusively refute his claims.

Reversed and remanded.

WHATLEY and SILBERMAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

927 So. 2d 194, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 6157, 2006 WL 1114988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyler-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack