Contreras v. State
909 So. 2d 962, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13758, 2005 WL 2087955
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 31, 2005·No. No. 3D05-1720·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
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
Contreras v. State, 909 So. 2d 962, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13758, 2005 WL 2087955 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).
909 So. 2d 962 (Contreras v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Roger v. State
931 So. 2d 1031 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)