Grimmage v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT RANDY L. GRIMMAGE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2D01-2380 Opinion filed October 26, 2001. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Brandt C. Downey, III, Judge. GREEN, Judge. Randy L. Grimmage appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Grimmage alleged that he might not qualify to be sentenced as a habitual felony offender. The trial court denied the claim finding that it was not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. We disagree. However, we affirm because we conclude that Grimmage's claim is facially insufficient since he did not specifically allege that he lacked the requisite qualifying convictions to be sentenced as a habitual felony offender. See, e.g., Lee v. State, 731 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding habitual felony offender sentence is illegal when defendant lacks the required qualifying offenses). This affirmance is without prejudice to Grimmage's right to file a facially sufficient motion, if he is able to do so. We affirm Grimmage's remaining claims without comment. Affirmed. BLUE, C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
