You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Keehn v. State

Citations: 754 So. 2d 789; 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3378; 2000 WL 294527Docket: No. 2D99-4512

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; March 21, 2000; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Ryan P. Keehn's appeal of the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), has been affirmed due to the motion's facial insufficiency, referencing Williams v. State, 736 So.2d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The court's affirmance is without prejudice, allowing Keehn the opportunity to file another motion under rule 3.800, specifically addressing a conviction for the nonexistent crime of attempted first-degree felony murder, as noted in State v. Gray, 654 So.2d 552 (Fla. 1995), should that apply. Judges CAMPBELL, GREEN, and DAVIS concur.

Legal Issues Addressed

Addressing Conviction for Nonexistent Crime

Application: The appellant may address the issue of a conviction for the nonexistent crime of attempted first-degree felony murder in a subsequent motion, as recognized by precedent.

Reasoning: Allowing Keehn the opportunity to file another motion under rule 3.800, specifically addressing a conviction for the nonexistent crime of attempted first-degree felony murder, as noted in State v. Gray, 654 So.2d 552 (Fla. 1995).

Facial Insufficiency of Motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a)

Application: The court affirmed the denial of the motion to correct an illegal sentence due to its facial insufficiency, indicating that the motion did not adequately present a legal basis for relief.

Reasoning: Ryan P. Keehn's appeal of the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), has been affirmed due to the motion's facial insufficiency.

Opportunity to Refile under Rule 3.800

Application: The court's affirmance was without prejudice, thereby allowing the appellant the opportunity to file a new motion addressing specific legal concerns.

Reasoning: The court's affirmance is without prejudice, allowing Keehn the opportunity to file another motion under rule 3.800, specifically addressing a conviction for the nonexistent crime of attempted first-degree felony murder.