Bunch v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bunch v. State

647 So. 2d 1080, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 115, 1995 WL 10499

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 13, 1995·No. No. 94-2461·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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.

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

Pincite

647 So. 2d 1080 (Bunch v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related