Adlington v. State
This text of 840 So. 2d 354 (Adlington v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Phillip ADLINGTON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Phillip Adlington, Raiford, pro se.
Charlie Crist, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sue-Ellen Kenny, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the order of the trial court denying appellant's motion to correct an illegal sentence on the authority of Bover v. State, 797 So.2d 1246, 1248-49 (Fla. 2001), which held that "if a habitual offender sentence is imposed when, as a matter of law, the defendant was not subject to habitualization, the resulting habitual offender sentence can be corrected as illegal provided the error is apparent from the face of the record." (citation omitted) (emphasis added). Here, the error alleged is not apparent on the face of the record.
WARNER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
840 So. 2d 354, 2003 WL 729175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adlington-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.