Taylor v. State
| Decision Date | 16 November 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D07-1778.,5D07-1778. |
| Citation | 969 So.2d 489 |
| Parties | Stacy TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Stacy Taylor, Daytona Beach, Pro Se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
ORFINGER, J.
Stacy Taylor appeals the trial court's order dismissing his motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) without prejudice. The trial court concluded
that Mr. Taylor's motion was legally insufficient as it failed to identify with particularity the nonhearsay record documents upon which he relied. We affirm.
In 1997, Mr. Taylor pled guilty to two counts of robbery with a firearm and mask (counts one and five); two counts of aggravated battery (counts two and three); and one count of attempted second-degree murder with a firearm (count four). Mr. Taylor was sentenced to concurrent terms of 210 months in prison with consecutive three-year minimum mandatory terms imposed on counts one and four as a result of his possession of a firearm during the commission of the offenses. See § 775.087(2), Fla. Stat. (1995). While Mr. Taylor was resentenced in 2000 to concurrent terms of 148 months in prison following the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), the consecutive three-year minimum mandatory terms on counts one and four remained unchanged.
In his rule 3.800(a) motion, Mr. Taylor attacks the imposition of consecutive minimum mandatory sentences, arguing that such a sentencing scheme is illegal, as the crimes occurred in a single criminal episode. See Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993) (holding that consecutive habitual offender sentences for offenses that were committed in single criminal episode are illegal). Mr. Taylor recognizes that in State v. Christian, 692 So.2d 889, 890 (Fla.1997), the Florida Supreme Court held that "[a]s a general rule, for offenses arising from a single episode, stacking is permissible where the violations of the mandatory minimum statutes cause injury to multiple victims, or multiple injuries to one victim." (Footnotes omitted). However, Mr. Taylor contends that in his case, it is "apparent on the face of the record" that "only one victim was injured during the criminal episode." Therefore, he argues that his sentence was improperly stacked.1
Generally, Hale claims must be brought in a proceeding under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 since a determination of whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Downs v. State, Case No. 2D19-2323
...Procedure 3.800(a), providing that he alleges that the claim may be determined from the face of the record."); Taylor v. State, 969 So. 2d 489, 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) ("Generally, Hale claims must be brought in a proceeding under [ rule 3.850 ] since a determination of whether the offenses......
-
Pierre v. State
...being resolved as a matter of law, without an evidentiary determination, and on the face of the existing court record); Taylor v. State, 969 So.2d 489 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (holding that, to plead a facially sufficient claim that illegal sentences were imposed arising from a single criminal e......
-
Hartman v. State
...for which the defendant has been sentenced arose out of the same criminal episode” requires an evidentiary hearing. Taylor v. State, 969 So.2d 489, 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). However, when it is clear from the face of the record, the issue may be decided in a rule 3.800(a) motion. Id. Hartman......
-
Hartman v. State
...for which the defendant has been sentenced arose out of the same criminal episode" requires an evidentiary hearing. Taylor v. State, 969 So. 2d 489, 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). However, when it is clear from the face of the record, the issue may be decided in a rule 3.800(a) motion. Id. Hartma......