Adams v. State

906 So. 2d 1200, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 11076, 2005 WL 1683339
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Adams v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 901 So. 2d 275
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 20, 2005·No. No. 3D05-1094·Published

Opinion

ROTHENBERG, Judge.

The defendant, Joseph Adams, appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The defendant argues that the Notice of Intent to Seek an Enhanced Penalty was a “shot[1201]*1201gun” notice, and therefore, insufficient. The alleged deficiency in the notice, however, does not render the sentence “illegal” under Rule 3.800(a), and may only be raised in a motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Zafora v. State, 900 So.2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Reese v. State, 899 So.2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Cooper v. State, 817 So.2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). As the defendant’s conviction became final more than two years ago, he would, however, be procedurally barred from raising this claim pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Adams v. State, 906 So. 2d 1200, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 11076, 2005 WL 1683339 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

906 So. 2d 1200 (Adams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Zafora v. State
900 So. 2d 675 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Reese v. State
899 So. 2d 428 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Cooper v. State
817 So. 2d 934 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)