From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hankerson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jan 30, 2004
864 So. 2d 574 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

Opinion

Case No. 5D03-3827.

Opinion filed January 30, 2004.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County, Robert K. Mathis, Judge.

Horace Hankerson, Raiford, pro se.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anthony J. Golden, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.


Horace Lee Hankerson appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Hankerson was convicted of aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer and received a sentence of 145.75 months in the Department of Corrections. He now complains that the sentence was improperly imposed under the 1995 version of the sentencing guidelines, a version held to be unconstitutional in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla. 2000). He also alleges that his offense occurred within the window period for raising a Heggs claim, and that his sentence would have been a departure under the 1994 guidelines.

See Trapp v. State, 760 So.2d 924 (Fla. 2000).

The trial court determined that Hankerson was actually sentenced pursuant to the habitual felony offender statute rather than the sentencing guidelines. In support of that determination, the trial court made reference to a certain page in the sentencing hearing transcript. However, that page is not attached to the court's order and the court did not otherwise indicate that it was supposed to be attached. Further, the written sentence attached to Hankerson's notice of appeal does not show that the spaces for sentencing him as an habitual felony offender were checked off.

The attorney general in its response to this court candidly acknowledges that the trial court judge "did not attach any documentation in support of his order denying relief." The record supporting the denial of relief under rule 3.800(a) must be attached to the trial court's order if a prima facie claim is alleged. E.g., Bunch v. State, 622 So.2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); see also Thomas v. State, 634 So.2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

We reverse and remand for attachments of documents to the order refuting Hankerson's claim, or for an evidentiary hearing.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

PETERSON, GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Hankerson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jan 30, 2004
864 So. 2d 574 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)
Case details for

Hankerson v. State

Case Details

Full title:HORACE HANKERSON, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Jan 30, 2004

Citations

864 So. 2d 574 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

Citing Cases

Gallinat v. State

See State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429 (Fla. 1998); Atwood v. State, 765 So.2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). We en…

Hankerson v. State

ON MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE Horace Hankerson filed a petition for writ of mandamus on January 13, 2005,…