MURPH v. STATE (2005)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Second District.

Ernest C. MURPH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D05-2993.

Decided: December 28, 2005

Ernest C. Murph appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Murph claims his violent career criminal sentence is illegal because he does not have the requisite prior convictions. See § 775.084(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1999). This claim is cognizable in a motion to correct illegal sentence. See Cook v. State, 816 So.2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Thus, the postconviction court erred in denying Murph's motion without addressing this claim. We therefore reverse the postconviction court's order as it relates to Murph's claim that he did not have the requisite prior convictions to qualify for violent career criminal sanctions and remand for further proceedings. We affirm the postconviction court's order in all other respects.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DAVIS, Judge.

KELLY and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network