Contreras v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Contreras v. State

909 So. 2d 962, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13758, 2005 WL 2087955

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 31, 2005

DocketNo. 3D05-1720

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 909 So. 2d 962 (Contreras 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

Contreras v. State, 909 So. 2d 962, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13758, 2005 WL 2087955 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

WELLS, Judge.

Raul Contreras appeals from an order denying his Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence claiming that the habituali-zation notice provided to him was not sufficiently specific. A notice deficiency of this nature does not, however, render a sentence “illegal” under Rule 3.800(a) and must therefore be raised in a motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850. See Cooper v. State, 817 So.2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Under Rule 3.850, the instant claim is time-barred.

Affirmed.

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

WELLS, Judge.

Raul Contreras appeals from an order denying his Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence claiming that the habituali-zation notice provided to him was not sufficiently specific. A notice deficiency of this nature does not, however, render a sentence “illegal” under Rule 3.800(a) and must therefore be raised in a motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850. See Cooper v. State, 817 So.2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Under Rule 3.850, the instant claim is time-barred.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

909 So. 2d 962, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13758, 2005 WL 2087955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/contreras-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack