A double jeopardy claim attacking convictions rather than sentences is improper in a motion to correct an illegal sentence if the claim cannot be determined from the record.
An appellant files a motion to correct an illegal sentence, alleging that her convictions for grand theft and robbery violate double jeopardy because they arose from the same criminal episode and involved the same victims and property. The court considers whether such a claim is appropriate for a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court holds that a double jeopardy claim attacking the validity of convictions rather than the sentences is improper in a motion to correct an illegal sentence, especially when the claim cannot be determined from the face of the record. Because the time for a motion for postconviction relief had expired, the trial court properly denied the motion.
At page 1205 Determining when double jeopardy claims can be raised7 citing caseswere committed during the same criminal episode, involved the same victims, and concerned the same jewelry. We agree with the trial court's conclusion that…
- Camacho-Villanueva v. Dixon, No. 2:23-cv-14186 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 8, 2023).The state court first found that Camacho couldn’t bring his motion under Rule 3.800(a) “because none of his allegations solely attack his sentence.” Id. at 196 (citing Henry v. State, 920 So. 2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)).
- Collins v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., No. 3:18-cv-00164 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2020).See e.g., Plowman v. State, 586 So. 2d 454, 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Henry v. State, 920 So. 2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Salazar v. State, 675 So. 2d 654, 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State v. Spella, 567 So. 2d 1051, 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1…
- German v. State, 204 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).publishedHenry v. State, 920 So.2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
- Pena v. State, 127 So. 3d 588 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).publishedBlack v. State, 52 So.3d 830, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citing Henry v. State, 920 So.2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)).
- Black v. State, 52 So. 3d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).publishedHenry v. State, 920 So.2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Safrany v. State, 895 So.2d 1145, 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Smith v. State, 886 So.2d 336, 337-38 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
- Coughlin v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).publishedSee, e.g., Plowman v. State, 586 So.2d 454, 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Henry v. State, 920 So.2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Salazar v. State, 675 So.2d 654, 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State v. Spella, 567 So.2d 1051, 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990…
- Timothy M. Coughlin v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 458 F. App'x 786 (11th Cir. 2012).unpublishedSee, e.g., Henry v. State, 920 So.2d 1204, 1205 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2006); Safrany v. State, 895 So.2d 1145, 1147 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2005); Smith v. State, 886 So.2d 336, 337 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2004); State v. Williams, 854 So.2d 215, 217 (Fla.Di…
Other citing cases
- Mauldin v. State, 9 So. 3d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).published
- Mento v. State, 965 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).published
- Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).published
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Tomika Henry, Brooksville, pro se.
No appearance required for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court's denial of appellant's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. Appellant claimed that her convictions for grand theft and robbery violated double jeopardy because they[*1205] were committed during the same criminal episode, involved the same victims, and concerned the same jewelry. We agree with the trial court's conclusion that this claim cannot be raised in a 3.800(a) motion because the claim attacks the convictions, not the sentences, and because the claim cannot be determined from the face of the record. See Safrany v. State, 895 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Smith v. State, 886 So.2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
We note that the situation would be different if the double jeopardy challenge was directed at the sentences and if the claim could be determined from the face of the record. See Hopping v. State, 708 So.2d 263 (Fla.1998) (holding that a double jeopardy claim that a sentence has been unconstitutionally enhanced may be raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion when the double jeopardy violation can be determined from the face of the record). See also Wheeler v. State, 880 So.2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (involving a claim of violation of double jeopardy rights in rescinded jail credit).
The motion could not have been treated as a motion for postconviction relief under rule 3.850 because the time limit for raising such a claim expired before the motion was filed. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to correct illegal sentence.
POLEN, GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.