Barnes v. State, 95-00619
| Decision Date | 16 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-00619,95-00619 |
| Citation | 661 So.2d 71 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1427 Guy BARNES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Guy Edward Barnes appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence. The court incorrectly denied as successive 1 the motion which asserts that the sentence imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement was based on a guidelines scoresheet in which the court improperly scored points for victim injury in contravention of Karchesky v. State, 591 So.2d 930 (Fla.1992). As it appears this argument may have merit, we reverse and remand.
While the plea agreement itself does not establish that Barnes negotiated for a guidelines sentence, it is apparent from the plea colloquy that Barnes and his counsel assumed that the sentence to be imposed was within the recommended range of the sentencing guidelines. When an agreed sentence is based on a scoresheet which includes improperly scored victim injury points, the case must be reversed and remanded. See Morris v. State, 605 So.2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Beasley v. State, 605 So.2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
On remand, unless the case files and records conclusively demonstrate that Barnes is not entitled to relief, the court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing. If the court again concludes that summary denial is proper, it must attach to its order those portions of the case file and record which refute Barnes' claim. If the court determines that the motion should be granted, the state shall be allowed to withdraw from the plea agreement, if desired; or Barnes shall be resentenced in accordance with this court's decisions in Wilson v. State, 648 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and Morris, 605 So.2d at 514.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
1 Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 contains no proscription against successive motions. Braddy v. State, 520 So.2d 660 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 528 So.2d 1183 (Fla.1988).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McBride
...defendants to file successive motions under rule 3.800. See Raley v. State, 675 So.2d 170, 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Barnes v. State, 661 So.2d 71, 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Thus, rule 3.800 expressly rejects application of res judicata principles to such Again, however, this conclusion does no......
-
McBride v. State
...the State and denied McBride's motion as successive.2 Rule 3.800(a) does not expressly prohibit successive motions. See Barnes v. State, 661 So.2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). However, this court has previously held that successive Rule 3.800(a) motions may be barred by the law of the case doctri......
-
Garcia v. State
...3.800. See Davis v. State, 26 So.3d 647 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Raley v. State, 675 So.2d 170, 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Barnes v. State, 661 So.2d 71, 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). While rule 3.800(a) does not prohibit successive motions, a defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific ......
-
Anderson v. State
...the earlier order denying relief. Rule 3.800 contains no proscription against the filing of successive motions. SeeBarnes v. State, 661 So.2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Nonetheless, a defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue which has already been decided against him. ......