Bunch v. State

647 So. 2d 1080, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 115, 1995 WL 10499
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 13, 1995
DocketNo. 94-2461
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

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.

Bluebook
Bunch v. State, 647 So. 2d 1080, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 115, 1995 WL 10499 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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).

DAUKSCH, DIAMANTIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Gentry v. State
652 So. 2d 518 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
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.