Opinion
No. 5D00-1636.
Opinion filed August 31, 2000. JULY TERM 2000
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Alan A. Dickey, Judge.
Levory W. Hickmon, Sanford, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
Hickmon appeals from the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He alleges that he is entitled to relief under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla. 2000). These allegations are sufficient pursuant to Parker v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D1465 (Fla. 5th DCA June 16, 2000). The trial court acknowledged that if the longer window period applied, he would reconsider the case. Since the Florida Supreme Court has now ruled the longer window period is the correct one to apply, we reverse and remand for further consideration by the trial court.
In Lancaster v. State, 2000 WL 1061990 (Fla. 5th DCA, Aug. 4, 2000), this court addressed the difference in the requirements of rule 3.800(a) motions and rule 3.850 motions, vis a vis Heggs claims. In contrast, Martino v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D1163 (Fla. 5th DCA May 12, 2000), this court, basically without discussing why, considered a Heggs issue in a rule 3.800(a) motion. The second district also did so in Higbee v. State, 2000 WL 869391 (Fla. 2d DCA June 30, 2000), by relying upon Martino. The problem is that while certain claims may be sufficiently raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion, other claims, such as those involving pleas, are much better addressed in rule 3.850 motions. As Lancaster points out, rule 3.850, rather than rule 3.800(a), is the proper vehicle for raising a claim in the post-conviction context when disputed issues of fact are involved. State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983 (Fla. 1995). In this case, because the necessary documents are attached, this court has sufficient information to rule upon Hickman's rule 3.800(a) motion.
See Trapp v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S429 (Fla. June 1, 2000).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SHARP, W., HARRIS and PLEUS, JJ., concur.