Cox v. State
221 So. 3d 723
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 1998 Cox entered a negotiated global plea to multiple felonies (including three counts of armed robbery and one count of aggravated battery) and was sentenced as a habitual felony offender to life imprisonment.
- Cox signed a written plea agreement expressly stipulating he qualified as a habitual felony offender under §775.084 and identifying prior convictions that served as predicates.
- The plea agreement also stated at least one prior conviction was within five years of the current offenses and that none of the priors had been set aside or pardoned.
- In 2016 Cox filed a pro se motion under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) to correct an alleged illegal sentence, arguing the prior convictions were not sentenced separately as required by §775.084(5).
- The trial court denied the motion; Cox appealed arguing his habitual-offender designation was illegal.
- The district court affirmed, finding Cox’s written stipulation waived the State’s proof obligations and that Cox failed to meet the burden under rule 3.800(a) to show an illegal sentence on the face of the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cox's habitual-felon designation was illegal because prior convictions were not sentenced separately under §775.084(5) | Cox: priors were not sequentially sentenced as §775.084(5) requires, so designation illegal | State: Cox knowingly and voluntarily stipulated he qualified as a habitual felony offender, waiving procedural proof requirements; record shows qualification | Court held Cox waived challenge by stipulation and failed to show on the face of the record an illegal sentence; denial affirmed |
| Whether a 3.800(a) motion shifts burden to State or requires defendant to show illegality on face of record | Cox implied the record supports his claim | State: burden is on movant; 3.800(a) requires defendant to affirmatively allege entitlement to relief based on record alone | Court held burden rests with movant under rule 3.800(a); Cox did not identify facially invalid record entries and thus failed |
Key Cases Cited
- Irving v. State, 627 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (stipulation waives State's duty to prove habitual-offender elements)
- White v. State, 60 So. 3d 1101 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (same)
- Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 2011) (3.800(a) movant may not rely on facts outside the record)
- Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007) (3.800(a) motion must show error apparent on face of record)