Scott B. Lowe v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledAugust 5, 2026
Docket3D2026-0368
StatusPublished
๐ฐ News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed August 5, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D26-0368
Lower Tribunal No. F07-6416A
________________
Scott B. Lowe,
Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from
the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Christine Hernandez, Judge.
Scott B. Lowe, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.
MILLER, J.
Appellant, Scott B. Lowe, challenges the summary denial of his motion
to correct an illegal sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
3.800(a). In his motion, he contends that the operative charging document
failed to allege the essential elements to support the twenty-year minimum
mandatory sentence he received. While his assertion was timely and not
barred by his prior collateral attacks on his sentence, as the trial court
correctly observed, the allegation of illegality is specious. See Brooks v.
State, 969 So. 2d 238, 242 (Fla. 2007) (motions to correct sentencing errors
under rule 3.800 โmay be raised at any time, . . . [but] both the error and the
defendant's entitlement to relief must be evident from the face of the record
and the applicable law.โ). The operative information contains the necessary
elements supporting the discharge minimum mandatory and the verdict form
reflects the jury rendered the corresponding findings. See ยง 775.087(1)(a),
Fla. Stat. (2010) (โ[W]henever a person is charged with a felony . . . and
during the commission of such felony the defendant carries, displays, uses,
threatens to use, or attempts to use any weapon or firearm, or during the
commission of such felony the defendant commits an aggravated battery,
the felony for which the person is charged shall be reclassified as . . . [,] [i]n
the case of a felony of the first degree, to a life felony.โ); Espinoza v. State,
264 So. 3d 343, 344 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (โTo pursue an enhanced
2
mandatory sentence as the 10-20-Life statute [prescribes], the state must
allege the grounds for enhancement in the charging document. The statutory
elements for such enhancement must be precisely charged in the
information.โ (alteration in original) (quotations omitted)). Accordingly, we
affirm in all respects.
Affirmed.
3