Tyrone Powell v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJuly 20, 2020
Docket1D19-1819
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D19-1819
_____________________________
TYRONE POWELL,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
Marianne L. Aho, Judge.
July 20, 2020
PER CURIAM.
Appellant makes two arguments challenging the trial court’s
denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida
Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the first claim of a
scoresheet error without comment. On the second claim, however,
we reverse and remand for the trial court to either impose
Appellant’s mandatory minimum sentences concurrently, or to
attach portions of the record conclusively refuting Appellant’s
entitlement to relief.
Appellant’s motion claimed that his sentence was illegal
because the trial court imposed consecutive mandatory minimum
sentences when his crimes arose from the same criminal episode
and did not involve the discharge of a firearm. See Williams v.
State, 186 So. 3d 989, 993 (Fla. 2016) (holding that “consecutive
sentencing of mandatory minimum imprisonment terms for
multiple firearm offenses is impermissible if the offenses arose
from the same criminal episode and a firearm was merely
possessed but not discharged”). The trial court ruled that
Appellant’s argument was refuted by the record. But we cannot
determine from the record portions attached that Appellant’s
argument is conclusively refuted. The State’s response relies on
transcripts provided in the appendix to its own brief in support of
affirming Appellant’s sentence. But these transcripts are not
included in the record on appeal. See, e.g., Brown v. State, 132 So.
3d 363, 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“[W]here a defendant has stated
a facially sufficient claim that is cognizable pursuant to rule
3.800(a), a trial court is required to attach records to an order of
denial which conclusively refute his entitlement to relief.”). We
thus reverse and remand for the trial court to either grant relief
on Appellant’s claim, or to attach portions of the record
conclusively refuting Appellant’s entitlement to relief.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED in part with
directions.
OSTERHAUS, KELSEY, and JAY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Tyrone Powell, pro se, Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael McDermott, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
2