Legal Opinion

Rutherford v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 27, 2012No. 1D12-1724PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

Isaac E. Rutherford appeals from an order denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) based upon his failure to allege a sufficient rule 3.800(a) claim. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

A rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence is intended to address cases in which the sentence imposes “a kind of punishment that no judge under the entire body of sentencing statutes could possibly inflict under any set of factual circumstances.” Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173, 1178 (Fla.2001) (quoting Blakley v. State, 746 So.2d 1182, 1186-87 (Fla.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Carter v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2001
  2. Judge v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992
  3. Blakley v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1999

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Burks v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2017
  2. Paris v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2015
  3. BILLY DAVIS v. STATE OF FLORIDADistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2019
  4. Darwin Bois v. State of FloridaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2025
  5. Doland v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2015

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API