Bunch v. State
This text of 647 So. 2d 1080 (Bunch 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
AFFIRMED. We affirm the summary denial of Bunch’s 3.800(a) motion for post-conviction relief without prejudice. Although Bunch has demonstrated a prima facie case of improper consecutive habitual offender sentences under Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994), the correct remedy to seek relief is a properly filed Rule 3.850 motion. See Callaway v. State, 642 So.2d 636 (Fla.2d DCA 1994); Borders v. State, 643 So.2d 110 (Fla.2d DCA 1994); Massey v. State, 648 So.2d 785 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
647 So. 2d 1080, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 115, 1995 WL 10499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bunch-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.