Jackson v. State, 1D01-0040.
Decision Date | 31 December 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 1D01-0040.,1D01-0040. |
Citation | 803 So.2d 842 |
Parties | Leroy JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Pro se, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Leroy Jackson (Appellant) appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. The trial court found the motion untimely under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b) and inappropriate for review under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) because it raises factual questions. We affirm the denial of the motion without prejudice to any right Appellant might have to file a facially sufficient claim under rule 3.800(a). Young v. State, 787 So.2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
Appellant alleged he was tried and found guilty of two counts of sale of cocaine and two counts of possession of (the same) cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, all of which offenses are second-degree felonies. § 893.13(1)(a)1 & § 893.03(2)(a)4, Fla. Stat. (1991). In March 1991, after being classified as a habitual felony offender (HFO), he was sentenced to 10 years for each count, with the terms to run consecutively, for a total of 40 years. § 775.084(4)(a)2, Fla. Stat. (1991) ( ). In his motion, Appellant alleged the "trial transcripts" describe the incident underlying the offenses as an undercover operation on October 25, 1990, "clearly showing a continuous episode." The motion alleged the sentences are illegal by virtue of running consecutively. Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993) ( ); State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983 (Fla.1995) ( ). Appellant seeks to have his sentences run concurrently.
The trial court construed Appellant's Hale claim as a mixed question of law and fact that necessarily would require an evidentiary determination and, thus, be appropriate only under rule 3.850, not rule 3.800(a). Id. at 988; Hubbard v. State, 773 So.2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The two-year window for seeking relief from a Hale sentencing error opened in August 1995 on the date of the mandate in Callaway. Dixon v. State, 730 So.2d 265, 269 (Fla. 1999). Therefore, Appellant's September 2000 motion was properly considered untimely filed pursuant to rule 3.850(b) and Dixon and was found to be procedurally barred on that ground.
However, the appropriate inquiry under Hale and its progeny does not end there. Johnson v. Moore, 801 So.2d 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) ( ). Callaway "d[id] not irretrievably foreclose relief from consecutively-imposed [HFO] sentences growing out of the same criminal episode by means of rule 3.800, without regard to the time constraints of rule 3.850(b)." Adams v. State, 755 So.2d 678, 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Mack v. State, 805 So.2d 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) ( ); West v. State, 790 So.2d 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Davis v. State, 784 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Pullins v. State, 777 So.2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (); Valdes v. State, 765 So.2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Indeed, the district court's Callaway opinion, which was approved by the Supreme Court of Florida, left the door of opportunity under rule 3.800(a) slightly ajar, stating: Callaway v. State, 642 So.2d 636, 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). While the "appropriate" method for seeking relief generally is a rule 3.850 motion, an evolving body of case law, including Mack, Valdes, and Allen, recognizes there may be instances where a Hale claim can be resolved from the face of "the record" without the need of an evidentiary hearing. See also Wilson v. State, 800 So.2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
To raise an "illegal sentence" claim under Rule 3.800(a), 1) "[t]he error must have resulted in an illegal sentence," 2) "[t]he error must appear on the face of the record," and 3) "[t]he motion must affirmatively allege that `the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief.'" Baker v. State, 714 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), quoting State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429 (Fla.1998)
; cf. Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1183 (Fla.2001). As in Baker, we presume "this [third] requirement would necessitate more than mere conclusory allegations": at minimum, "how and where the record demonstrates an entitlement to relief." 714 So.2d at 1167 n. 1. In the context of an alleged sentencing guidelines scoresheet error under rule 3.800(a) in Atwood v. State, 765 So.2d 242, 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), we noted that "the record ... refers to the entire written record available in the circuit court, not just to the limited record on appeal." See also Russell v. State, 782 So.2d 992 & n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Where Atwood alleged the errors were present on the face of the record, we reversed the order summarily denying relief and remanded with instructions to the trial court to determine whether the motion could be resolved on the record. Atwood, 765 So.2d at 243; Wilson v. State, 802 So.2d 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). So long as a rule 3.800(a) motion satisfies the allegation requirements of the rule, the reasoning in Atwood should apply as well to a transcript of the trial if it is available. Fla. R.App. P. 9.200(a)(1) (); Wilson, 802 So.2d at 360; Allen v. State, 779 So.2d 471 & n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Howard v. State, 724 So.2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Poole v. State, 659 So.2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) ( ); cf. Williams v. State, 705 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) ( ). Appellant's allegations address the "where" but not the "how" factor noted in Baker. Accordingly, his motion fails to satisfy the threshold allegation...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Downs v. State, Case No. 2D19-2323
...exhibits submitted with his motion demonstrate that his crimes were committed in the same criminal episode. See Jackson v. State, 803 So. 2d 842, 844-45 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (holding that a Hale claim under rule 3.800(a) requires more than a general allegation, and claim must cite to facts b......
-
Robinson v. State, 1D01-2912.
...episode, the trial court may address the Hale issue pursuant to rule 3.800, which may be filed at any time. See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 803 So.2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Turner v. State, 804 So.2d 1283 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Johnson v. Moore, 801 So.2d 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). See also Crot......
-
Theophile v. State
...without citing to facts established in the trial transcript or otherwise apparent on the face of the record. See Jackson v. State, 803 So.2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (holding that a Hale claim under rule 3.800(a) requires more than a general allegation, and claim must cite to facts based on ......
-
Thrasher v. State
...show an error on the face of the record establishing an entitlement to relief. Fla. R. Crim. P 3.800(a) ; see also Jackson v. State, 803 So. 2d 842, 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). "[O]nly the elements of the out-of-state crime ... should be considered in determining whether the conviction is anal......