Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Staples v. State

Florida Court of Appeals, Third District

July 10, 2019

David Staples, Appellant,
v.
The State of Florida, Appellee.

         Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

          An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lower Tribunal Nos. 07-21129A, 07-24409A, 07-38201A, and 14-27988 Cristina Miranda, Judge.

          Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Shannon Hemmendinger, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

          Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Magaly Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

          Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and MILLER, JJ.

          FERNANDEZ, J.

         Petitioner David Staples appeals his judgment and sentence. We agree with the State and affirm.

         On July 22, 2008, Staples entered a nolo contendere plea to the following charges: (1) robbery using a deadly weapon or firearm and armed carjacking, (2) robbery using a deadly weapon or firearm and attempted kidnapping with a weapon, and (3) robbery using a deadly weapon or firearm. The trial court withheld adjudication and sentenced Staples as a youthful offender to two years community control, followed by four years probation, with the special condition that he serve 364 days in county jail, mitigated by boot camp.

         On January 12, 2010, the State filed an affidavit of violation of probation in each case alleging that Staples violated his probation by committing the crime of leaving the scene of an accident with property damage. On September 9, 2011, the trial court modified Staples' probation by removing the boot camp provision and extending the term of probation by four years, so it would end on September 9, 2015.

         On August 22, 2012, the State filed an amended affidavit of violation of probation alleging that Staples violated his probation by committing the criminal offenses of having no driver's license and failing to pay for drug testing fees. On December 31, 2014, the State filed another amended affidavit of violation of probation alleging that Staples violated his probation by committing the criminal offenses of battery and domestic battery by strangulation. On January 8, 2015, the State charged Staples with robbery by sudden snatching, battery, domestic battery by strangulation, and false imprisonment.

         At a hearing on September 3, 2015, Staples admitted he violated his probation and entered a nolo contendere plea. The trial court revoked his probation and sentenced him to 18.1 years in state prison with credit for time served from December 19, 2014.

         Thereafter, this Court entered an order granting Staples' petition for belated appeal on January 5, 2017. On February 28, 2017, while this appeal was pending and before the Public Defender's Office was appointed in this case, Staples filed a pro se motion to correct sentencing errors alleging three claims: (1) that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to revoke his probation, (2) that the trial court erred in failing to continue his youthful offender status, and (3) that the trial court erred in designating him a violent felony offender of special concern.

         The State filed a response to Staples' February 28, 2017 motion, contending that the motion was "facially insufficient under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a)," because it failed to "affirmatively identify court records which, on their face, demonstrate the existence of an illegal sentence." On September 12, 2018, the trial court denied Staples' motion, stating that Staples' motion was "facially insufficient under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a)." The order further stated that "[t]he defendant fails to affirmatively identify court records which, on their face, demonstrate the existence of an illegal sentence. See Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045 (Fla. 2011)." Staples now appeals.

         Staples argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion as facially insufficient under rule 3.800(a) because his motion was not filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a), but instead was filed pursuant to rule 3.800(b)(2), which does not require the movant to affirmatively allege that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to the relief sought. Staples contends that this Court should reverse ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.