Full Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MILTON BATTLES, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D22-765 October 14, 2022 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Melissa Gravitt, Judge. Milton Battles, pro se. PER CURIAM. Milton Battles appeals from the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Battles argued that his habitual felony offender (HFO) sentence for the sale of cocaine was illegal because he lacked the requisite predicate felony convictions. The trial court denied Battles' motion, determining that his claim was not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. We reverse. "As a general rule, a defendant's contention that [he] d[oes] not have the predicate felonies required to support an HFO designation is cognizable under a rule 3.800(a) claim if [his] entitlement to relief is clear from the face of the record." White v. State, 60 So. 3d 1101, 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (citing Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246, 1247 (Fla. 2001)). In his motion, Battles pointed to several specific convictions that were allegedly included in the presentence investigation report and relied upon to enhance his sentence, and he claimed they were not qualifying prior felonies under the HFO statute. See Cox v. State, 221 So. 3d 723, 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (discussing the requirement that the defendant "affirmatively identify court records which, on their face, demonstrate the existence of an illegal sentence or an entitlement to relief under rule 3.800(a)"). Specifically, he asserted that the predicate offenses used to support his adjudication as an HFO were either felonies that fell outside of the applicable five-year time frame under the HFO statute, were nonqualifying drug related offenses, or could not be 2 counted as separate prior felonies because he was sentenced for them on the same day. See § 775.084(1)(a), (5), Fla. Stat. (2006). Because Battles' motion presented a facially sufficient claim, cognizable under rule 3.800(a), the trial court must address it. See Walker v. State, 940 So. 2d 1215, 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Hill v. State, 56 So. 3d 905, 905 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Therefore, we reverse the order on appeal and remand with instructions that the court consider the merits of the claim.1 Reversed and remanded. KELLY, SLEET, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication. 1 Battles also claimed that the prosecutor "provided false presentation in open court" that he qualified as an HFO. To the extent he challenged the procedures used to impose the sentence based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct, such a claim is not cognizable in a motion to correct illegal sentence. See Henry v. State, 933 So. 2d 28, 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ("[C]laims of prosecutorial misconduct . . . should have been raised on direct appeal."); Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (en banc) ("[Rule 3.800(a)] is concerned primarily with whether the terms and conditions of the punishment for a particular offense are permissible as a matter of law. It is not a vehicle designed to re- examine [sic] whether the procedure employed to impose the punishment comported with statutory law and due process."). 3