Burnett v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Burnett v. State

768 So. 2d 1098, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8129, 1999 WL 402741

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 18, 1999

DocketNo. 99-00401

StatusPublished

This text of 768 So. 2d 1098 (Burnett 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

Burnett v. State, 768 So. 2d 1098, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8129, 1999 WL 402741 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Robert Antonio Burnett filed a postcon-viction motion challenging his 1990 consecutive habitual felony offender sentences. He claimed these sentences were imposed in contravention of Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993). Burnett’s unsworn motion was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The issue raised in Burnett’s motion, however, is not cognizable for a rule 3.800(a) proceeding, and must be raised pursuant to rule 3.850. See Dixon v. State, 730 So.2d 265 (Fla. 1999).

Even if we treated Burnett’s motion as having been filed under rule 3.850, he still would not be entitled to any relief. Burnett filed his motion outside the window for seeking relief under Hale. The window for Hale claims closed two years after August 16, 1995, the date of the mandate in State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983 (Fla. 1995) Affirmed. See Dixon, 730 So.2d 265. Burnett filed his motion in May 1998.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Robert Antonio Burnett filed a postcon-viction motion challenging his 1990 consecutive habitual felony offender sentences. He claimed these sentences were imposed in contravention of Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993). Burnett’s unsworn motion was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The issue raised in Burnett’s motion, however, is not cognizable for a rule 3.800(a) proceeding, and must be raised pursuant to rule 3.850. See Dixon v. State, 730 So.2d 265 (Fla. 1999).

Even if we treated Burnett’s motion as having been filed under rule 3.850, he still would not be entitled to any relief. Burnett filed his motion outside the window for seeking relief under Hale. The window for Hale claims closed two years after August 16, 1995, the date of the mandate in State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983 (Fla. 1995) Affirmed. See Dixon, 730 So.2d 265. Burnett filed his motion in May 1998.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

768 So. 2d 1098, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8129, 1999 WL 402741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burnett-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack