Austin v. State

The order denying Defendant’s rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence is affirmed, but for reasons other than those expressed in the order on appeal.

The trial court found that the instant motion was successive to Defendant’s prior rule 3.800(a) motions; however, nothing in the summary record established that was so. Nevertheless, the denial is affirmed because the motion essentially challenged the validity of factors the trial court used to depart upward on resentencing, and its alleged refusal to consider factors in mitigation. If preserved, these challenges could have been raised…