Sheffield v. State, Case No. 4D04-4795 (FL 3/30/2005), Case No. 4D04-4795.

• Decision Date: 30 March 2005
• Docket Number: Case No. 4D04-4795.
• Parties: TONY SHEFFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 1

TONY SHEFFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

Case No. 4D04-4795.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Opinion filed March 30, 2005.

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800(a) motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Joel T. Lazarus, Judge, L.T. Case Nos. 02-7149 CF10A & 02-7269 CF10A.

Tony Sheffield, Daytona Beach, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court's denial of the appellant's rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. The order denying relief does not show the rationale used by the court to summarily deny the motion, nor does it attach any record excerpts that specifically address the claims raised in the motion. See Anderson v. State, 627 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 1993); Kendall v. State, 619 So.2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Our supreme court has consistently described the lower court's duties when denying such a motion as "a trial court must either state its rationale in its decision or attach those specific parts of the record that refute each claim presented in the motion." Anderson, 627 So.2d at 1171.

In the instant case, the state's response refers to "sentencing documents in the Court file, copies attached. . . ." The record reveals the lower court attached the state's response to the rule 3.800(a) motion as its justification for denying the appellant's motion. However, no sentencing documents or other attachments to the state's response have been provided to this court for review on appeal. As no other rationale was contained within the order denying relief, the order fails to comply with cases such as Anderson and Kendall. Therefore, the order denying relief is reversed and remanded to the trial court for the attachment of record excerpts conclusively showing appellant is entitled to no relief with respect to his rule 3.800(a) motion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

KLEIN, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL DISPOSITION OF ANY TIMELY FILED MOTION FOR REHEARING.