Disanto v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Disanto v. State

159 So. 3d 869, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1921, 2015 WL 585435

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 13, 2015

DocketNo. 5D14-4083

StatusPublished

This text of 159 So. 3d 869 (Disanto 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

Disanto v. State, 159 So. 3d 869, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1921, 2015 WL 585435 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Seth Disanto appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence, which was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Disanto alleged that the State improperly relied on a Her-nando County conviction as one of the predicate felonies necessary to support his habitualization in this case. However, because Disanto did not allege that the predicate prior convictions used to support his habitualization do not exist as a matter of law, his motion is facially insufficient. See Macaluso v. State, 912 So.2d 694, 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order summarily denying Disanto’s motion and remand with instructions to enter an order of dismissal.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

PALMER, EVANDER, and BERGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Seth Disanto appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence, which was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Disanto alleged that the State improperly relied on a Her-nando County conviction as one of the predicate felonies necessary to support his habitualization in this case. However, because Disanto did not allege that the predicate prior convictions used to support his habitualization do not exist as a matter of law, his motion is facially insufficient. See Macaluso v. State, 912 So.2d 694, 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order summarily denying Disanto’s motion and remand with instructions to enter an order of dismissal.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

PALMER, EVANDER, and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 So. 3d 869, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1921, 2015 WL 585435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disanto-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack