STEWART v. STATE (2007)

Joseph Stewart appeals the trial court's summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).   In his motion, the defendant alleges that the trial court erred in relying on certain predicate convictions to support adjudicating the defendant as a habitual felony offender.   The defendant has raised a facially sufficient claim for rule 3.800(a) relief that the trial court, by summarily denying the motion, has failed to conclusively refute.   Consequently, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.   On remand, if the trial court again enters an order summarily denying the post-conviction motion, the trial court shall attach written portions of the record conclusively refuting the defendant's claim.   See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D) (requiring reversal by this court unless the record shows conclusively that the defendant is entitled to no relief).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

PER CURIAM.