Shea v. State
| Decision Date | 16 October 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D11–3956.,4D11–3956. |
| Parties | Phillip J. SHEA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the SeventeenthJudicial Circuit, Broward County; Carlos Rebollo, Judge; L.T. Case No. 94–14800 CF 10A.
Phillip J. Shea, Daytona Beach, pro se.
No appearance required for appellee.
We summarily reverse the trial court's order denying appellant's Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence.
Appellant's motion raised various claims of scoresheet error and improper weapon enhancements. The court denied the motion without explanation, without a State response, and without any attachments. This was improper. Fleming v. State, 980 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Matyjasik v. State, 969 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Sheffield v. State, 903 So.2d 1009, 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). See also Terry v. State, 970 So.2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (); Dieudonne v. State, 958 So.2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (same); Anderson v. State, 627 So.2d 1170 (Fla.1993) ().
Although Rule 3.800(a) does not expressly require a court to attach records, caselaw has required a court to attach the records that refute a facially sufficient claim. See Thompson v. State, 17 So.3d 307 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Here, the trial court apparently found the claims sufficient, but provided no explanation for its denial of the motion. Summary reversal is warranted because the State is not permitted to attach records necessary to refute a Rule 3.800(a) claim on appeal. Collins v. State, 805 So.2d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Sheffield, 903 So.2d at 1011.
We remand for further proceedings. We express no opinion as to the merits of appellant's claims, which should be addressed in the first instance by the trial court.
Reversed and Remanded for further proceedings.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hagans v. State
...of such.1Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D); Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(i); Foster v. State, 106 So.3d 6, 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Shea v. State, 97 So.3d 861, 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.SAWAYA, PALMER and BERGER, JJ., concur. 1. The holding in this matter is n......
-
Theiss v. State, 4D14–3163.
...with no explanation and without ordering a state response. See Charles v. State, 100 So.3d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ; Shea v. State, 97 So.3d 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Theiss satisfied his burden of showing that the face of the record (i.e., the judgment and sentence) would demonstrate the a......
-
Evans v. State, 4D15–4351.
...and without providing any explanation.The summary denial of a postconviction motion in this fashion is improper, see Shea v. State, 97 So.3d 861, 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), and we condemn the practice.However, it is clear from the face of the motion and the documents attached by appellant tha......
-
Pascoe v. State
...sufficient motion without explaining or attaching record documents to refute the claim of entitlement to credit. Shea v. State , 97 So.3d 861, 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (recognizing that this practice is improper). While the State furnishes the sentencing documents to this Court, it is not pe......