Alloway v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Alloway v. State

807 So. 2d 187, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1746, 2002 WL 232802

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 19, 2002

DocketNo. 1D01-2312

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 807 So. 2d 187 (Alloway 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.

Bluebook

Alloway v. State, 807 So. 2d 187, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1746, 2002 WL 232802 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence in which he alleged that he did not have the qualifying predicate offenses required to be sentenced as a habitual felony offender. The trial court denied the motion as not cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). However, such a claim is cognizable on a motion to correct an illegal sentence if it is apparent from the face of the record that the requisite predicate felonies essential to qualify a defendant for habitualization do not exist as a matter of law. See Bover v. State, 797 So.2d 1246 (Fla.2001). We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to consider whether it is apparent from the face of the record that appellant did not have the requisite predicate felonies as a matter of law. See Johnson v. State, 795 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Smith v. State, 651 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Overstreet v. State, 629 So.2d 125 (Fla.1993).

BOOTH, MINER, KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence in which he alleged that he did not have the qualifying predicate offenses required to be sentenced as a habitual felony offender. The trial court denied the motion as not cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). However, such a claim is cognizable on a motion to correct an illegal sentence if it is apparent from the face of the record that the requisite predicate felonies essential to qualify a defendant for habitualization do not exist as a matter of law. See Bover v. State, 797 So.2d 1246 (Fla.2001). We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to consider whether it is apparent from the face of the record that appellant did not have the requisite predicate felonies as a matter of law. See Johnson v. State, 795 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Smith v. State, 651 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Overstreet v. State, 629 So.2d 125 (Fla.1993).

BOOTH, MINER, KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

807 So. 2d 187, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1746, 2002 WL 232802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alloway-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack