motion filed rule in Florida

2017See In re Amends. to Fla. R. of Crim, P., 204 So.3d 944, 944-45 (Fla. 2016) (explaining that the 2016 amendments to rules 3,800 and 3,801 "make clear that jail credit matters can be litigated in either a motion filed under rule 3.800(b) while a defendant’s direct appeal is pending, or in a motion filed under rule 3.801 after a defendant's sentence has become final”).

2017P., 204 So.3d 944, 944-45 (Fla. 2016) (explaining that the 2016 amendments to rules 3.800 and 3.801 “make clear that jail credit matters can be litigated in either a motion filed under rule 3.800(b) while a defendant’s direct appeal is pending, or in a motion filed under rule 3.801 after a defendant’s sentence has become final”); see also Cousnard v. State, 188 So.3d 936, 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (reversing the trial court’s denial of a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error that sought an additional award of jail credit); Lowe v. State, 152 So.3d 1279, 1280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (qu

2012Thus, “[u]pon receiving a motion filed under rule 3.850, the court must first ‘determine whether the motion is facially sufficient, i.e., whether it sets out a cognizable claim for relief based upon the legal and factual grounds asserted.’ Only after the trial court deems the motion (or the particular claims within it) facially sufficient does it review the record for evidence refuting the claim.” Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 758 (Fla.2007) (citations omitted) (quoting Jacobs v. State, 880 So.2d 548, 550 (Fla.2004)).

2007Upon receiving a motion filed under rule 3.850, the court must first "determine whether the motion is facially sufficient, i.e., whether it sets out a cognizable claim for relief based upon the legal and factual grounds asserted." Jacobs v. State, 880 So.2d 548, 550 (Fla.2004); see Fla. R.Crim.

2009See State v. Anderson, 905 So.2d 111, 118 (Fla.2005) (recognizing the need for a trial court to have a properly calculated scoresheet when deciding a sentence and applying the “would-have-been-imposed” standard to rule 3.850 motions alleging scoresheet error).

2007Because Hummel , the conflict case, involved a motion filed under rule 3.800(a), we disapproved the First District's decision only "to the extent it [wa]s inconsistent with" Anderson. 905 So.2d at 119 . [3] Brooks violated his probation by attempting a robbery, for which he was separately charged and sentenced to a concurrent ten-year term. [4] Since the Fourth District's decision, the Third District, too, has adopted the could-have-been-imposed test for scoresheet errors raised under rule 3.800(a).

2025A motion filed under the rule’s subdivision (c)(4) asserts that “the undisputed [material] facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt against the defendant.” The subdivision’s procedure helps “avoid a trial when there are no material facts genuinely in issue.” State v. Kalogeropolous, 758 So. 2d 110, 111 (Fla. 2000).

2017Analysis When reviewing the summary denial of a motion filed under rule 3.850, this court applies de novo review and “must accept the movant’s factual allegations as true to the extent that they are not refuted by the record.” Jennings v. State, 123 So.3d 1101, 1121 (Fla. 2013) (citing Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037, 1041 (Fla. 2000)).

2017Since there was no evi-dentiary hearing, the court “must examine each claim to determine if it is legally sufficient[ ] and, if so, whether the record refutes it.” Allen v. State, 854 So.2d 1255, 1258 (Fla. 2003). “[UJnless the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief, the order shall be reversed and the cause remanded for an evidentiary hearing or other appropriate relief.” Fla. R.

2017P., 204 So.3d 944, 944-45 (Fla. 2016) (explaining that the 2016 amendments to rules 3.800 and 3.801 “make clear that jail credit matters can be litigated in either a motion filed under rule 3.800(b) while a defendant’s direct appeal is pending, or in a motion filed under rule 3.801 after a defendant’s sentence has become final”); see also Cousnard v. State, 188 So.3d 936, 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (reversing the trial court’s denial of a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error that sought an additional award of jail credit); Lowe v. State, 152 So.3d 1279, 1280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (qu

2017In the present case, appellant filed his rule 3.800(a) motion, which is sworn under the penalty of perjury, in 2016. “[A] motion filed under rule 3.800(a) may be treated as a motion filed under rule 3.850 where it is in the ‘interest of justice to do so’ and the motion would be timely under rule 3.850.” Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045, 1052 (Fla. 2011) (citation omitted).

2017Analysis When reviewing the summary denial of a motion filed under rule 3.850, this court applies de novo review and “must accept the movant’s factual allegations as true to the extent that they are not refuted by the record.” Jennings v. State, 123 So.3d 1101, 1121 (Fla. 2013) (citing Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037, 1041 (Fla. 2000)).

2017P., 204 So.3d 944, 944-45 (Fla. 2016) (explaining that the 2016 amendments to rules 3.800 and 3.801 “make clear that jail credit matters can be litigated in either a motion filed under rule 3.800(b) while a defendant’s direct appeal is pending, or in a motion filed under rule 3.801 after a defendant’s sentence has become final”); see also Cousnard v. State, 188 So.3d 936, 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (reversing the trial court’s denial of a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error that sought an additional award of jail credit); Lowe v. State, 152 So.3d 1279, 1280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (qu

2014See Lo-mont v. State, 506 So.2d 1141, 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (holding that a challenge to the assessment of points for felony convictions is not a claim of scoresheet error that can be resolved on the face of the record and is cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion only if raised as a claim of ineffective assistance in failing to object to such an error); see also Soto v. State, 814 So.2d 533, 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that a scoresheet error that cannot be determined “from the face of the record” may be raised as a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel pursuant to rule 3.850).

2014See Lo-mont v. State, 506 So.2d 1141, 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (holding that a challenge to the assessment of points for felony convictions is not a claim of scoresheet error that can be resolved on the face of the record and is cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion only if raised as a claim of ineffective assistance in failing to object to such an error); see also Soto v. State, 814 So.2d 533, 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that a scoresheet error that cannot be determined “from the face of the record” may be raised as a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel pursuant to rule 3.850).

2013See Hettick v. State, 977 So.2d 797, 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

2012Thus, “[u]pon receiving a motion filed under rule 3.850, the court must first ‘determine whether the motion is facially sufficient, i.e., whether it sets out a cognizable claim for relief based upon the legal and factual grounds asserted.’ Only after the trial court deems the motion (or the particular claims within it) facially sufficient does it review the record for evidence refuting the claim.” Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 758 (Fla.2007) (citations omitted) (quoting Jacobs v. State, 880 So.2d 548, 550 (Fla.2004)).

2011See Bennett’s Leasing, Inc. v. First Street Mortgage Corp., 870 So.2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (dismissing appeal and holding a motion to vacate directed at a nonfinal order is not a motion filed under rule 1.540, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure).

2011Brooks, 969 So.2d at 243 n. 8 (quoting Hall v. State, 643 So.2d 635, 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)).

2011See Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562 (Fla.2008).

2011See Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562 (Fla.2008).

2009Upon a lesser showing than good cause, the rule allows the court to use its discretion.” Taylor v. State, 870 So.2d 72, 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citation omitted); Smith v. State, 840 So.2d 404, 406 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“[I]n situations where less than good cause is shown, a trial court’s decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.”) “In order to show cause why the plea should be withdrawn, mere allegations are not enough; the defense must offer proof that the plea was not voluntarily and intelligently entered.” Robinson v. State, 761 So.2d 269, 274 (Fla.1999).

2009See Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004).

2009Upon a lesser showing than good cause, the rule allows the court to use its discretion.” Taylor v. State, 870 So.2d 72, 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citation omitted); Smith v. State, 840 So.2d 404, 406 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“[I]n situations where less than good cause is shown, a trial court’s decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.”) “In order to show cause why the plea should be withdrawn, mere allegations are not enough; the defense must offer proof that the plea was not voluntarily and intelligently entered.” Robinson v. State, 761 So.2d 269, 274 (Fla.1999).

2009Upon a lesser showing than good cause, the rule allows the court to use its discretion.” Taylor v. State, 870 So.2d 72, 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citation omitted); Smith v. State, 840 So.2d 404, 406 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“[I]n situations where less than good cause is shown, a trial court’s decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.”) “In order to show cause why the plea should be withdrawn, mere allegations are not enough; the defense must offer proof that the plea was not voluntarily and intelligently entered.” Robinson v. State, 761 So.2d 269, 274 (Fla.1999).

2008See also DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So.2d 375, 379 (Fla.1984) (stating that no time limitation exists for a motion filed under rule 1.540(b) to vacate a void judgment), superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in Lefler v. Lefler, 776 So.2d 319 , 322 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Greisel v. Gregg, 733 So.2d 1119, 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Del Conte Enters. v. Thomas Publ'g Co., 711 So.2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

2008See also DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So.2d 375, 379 (Fla.1984) (stating that no time limitation exists for a motion filed under rule 1.540(b) to vacate a void judgment), superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in Lefler v. Lefler, 776 So.2d 319 , 322 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Greisel v. Gregg, 733 So.2d 1119, 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Del Conte Enters. v. Thomas Publ'g Co., 711 So.2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

2008See also DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So.2d 375, 379 (Fla.1984) (stating that no time limitation exists for a motion filed under rule 1.540(b) to vacate a void judgment), superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in Lefler v. Lefler, 776 So.2d 319 , 322 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Greisel v. Gregg, 733 So.2d 1119, 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Del Conte Enters. v. Thomas Publ'g Co., 711 So.2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

2008Clifton v. State, 905 So.2d 1042,1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).