White v. State
60 So. 3d 1101
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- White sought review of a trial court ruling denying a Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct sentence.
- She pleaded no contest to strong-arm robbery and grand theft and was sentenced as an habitual felony offender (HFO) to 48 months on each count, with concurrent terms.
- The court orally imposed a one-year probation after release, but it was unclear whether it applied to both counts or only grand theft.
- Probation was later revoked after her release, resulting in 30 years for strong-arm robbery and 10 years for grand theft, still to be served concurrently.
- Her prior related appeals affirmed the HFO designation and later Rule 3.850 claims regarding trial counsel in the VOP proceeding.
- She argues, in the current Rule 3.800(a) motion, that her HFO designation was illegal, that jail/prison credits were miscalculated, and that the thirty-year VOP sentence was improper because she was not placed on probation for count I.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HFO designation lacked proper predicate felonies. | White contends she lacked qualifying predicate felonies. | State argues record supports HFO due to necessity of public protection. | No; need for evidentiary hearing to resolve predicate convictions. |
| Whether jail and prison credits were correctly reflected. | White claims incorrect jail/prison credits. | DOC controls prison credit; jail credit requires facial detailing or administrative steps. | Claim facially insufficient; must refile jail credit; prison credit exhausted through DOC process. |
| Whether the thirty-year VOP sentence was authorized given lack of probation on count I. | White asserts no probation existed for count I. | Trial court records/intent govern; issue requires trial court records to resolve. | Must be raised in trial court with records; not properly decided on Rule 3.800(a). |
| Whether Rule 3.800(a) was an available vehicle given need for evidentiary hearing. | Record is silent on predicate convictions; 3.800(a) applicable. | 3.800(a) generally limits to facial record; evidentiary hearing may be required. | Evidentiary hearing required; 3.800(a) cannot resolve without it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bover v. State, 797 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2001) (determines when 3.800(a) may correct habitual-offender sentences on facial record)
- Gray v. State, 837 So.2d 612 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (limits on evidentiary hearings in 3.800(a) proceedings)
- State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429 (Fla. 1998) (pre-sentence jail credit requires factual specifics for facial sufficiency)
- Phillips v. State, 998 So.2d 675 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (prison credit exhausted through DOC; administrative remedies required)
- Sullivan v. State, 913 So.2d 762 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (tipsy coachman-related rationale; affirmance of correct outcome)