Barletta v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barletta v. State

886 So. 2d 322, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 17073, 2004 WL 2535231

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 10, 2004·No. No. 4D04-469·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s motion for relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and remand for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of those portions of [323]*323the record which conclusively refute appellant’s claimed entitlement to relief. In so doing, we reject the state’s argument that our per curiam affirmance in Barletta v. State, 842 So.2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) bars appellant’s claim that his sentence is an illegal habitual offender sentence under the collateral estoppel doctrine. See State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287 (Fla.2003); Shelton v. State, 739 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

POLEN, KLEIN and MAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s motion for relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and remand for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of those portions of [323]*323the record which conclusively refute appellant’s claimed entitlement to relief. In so doing, we reject the state’s argument that our per curiam affirmance in Barletta v. State, 842 So.2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) bars appellant’s claim that his sentence is an illegal habitual offender sentence under the collateral estoppel doctrine. See State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287 (Fla.2003); Shelton v. State, 739 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

POLEN, KLEIN and MAY, JJ., concur.

Barletta v. State, 886 So. 2d 322, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 17073, 2004 WL 2535231 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

886 So. 2d 322 (Barletta v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related