From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fenelon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
May 3, 2006
932 So. 2d 431 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

Summary

holding that trial court must attach portions of record conclusively refuting a legally sufficient 3.800 claim

Summary of this case from Linder v. State

Opinion

No. 4D06-227.

May 3, 2006.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Krista Marx, J.

Max Fenelon, Sanderson, pro se.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.


Max Fenelon appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The motion raised two claims, but we reverse only as to one. We accept the state's concession of error on this claim and reverse, because the trial court failed to attach record evidence to refute the facially sufficient claim that the ten-year sentence for battery while in a detention facility exceeded the five-year statutory maximum for a third-degree felony. See § 784.082(3), Fla. Stat. (1999); Johnson v. State, 665 So.2d 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (holding that the trial court must attach portions of the record conclusively refuting a legally sufficient 3.800(a) claim).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for attachment of portions of the record refuting appellant's claim of an illegal sentence, if such records exist.

WARNER, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Fenelon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
May 3, 2006
932 So. 2d 431 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

holding that trial court must attach portions of record conclusively refuting a legally sufficient 3.800 claim

Summary of this case from Linder v. State

holding that trial court must attach portions of record conclusively refuting a legally sufficient 3.800 claim

Summary of this case from Rudicil v. State

reversing because the "trial court failed to attach record evidence to refute the facially sufficient claim"

Summary of this case from Eubanks v. State
Case details for

Fenelon v. State

Case Details

Full title:Max FENELON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: May 3, 2006

Citations

932 So. 2d 431 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

Citing Cases

Tukes v. State

We affirm the summary denial of the first claim for the reasons set forth in the State's response, but…

Rudicil v. State

Rudicil argues the trial court erred in denying his 3.800(a) motion because the face of the record, without a…