Doll v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Doll v. State

917 So. 2d 881, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 7952, 2005 WL 1226151

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 25, 2005·No. No. 3D04-1854·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983, 987 (Fla.1995)(permitting retro-active application of Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), which held that the habitual offender statute did not authorize the imposition of consecutive habitual felony offender sentences for multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode), receded, from in part, Dixon v. State 730 So.2d 265, 269 n. 7 (Fla.1999)(finding that “defendants must have already filed their 3.850 motion seeking Hale relief, at the very latest, within two years of the date our mandate in Callaway issued on August 16,1995”).

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983, 987 (Fla.1995)(permitting retro-active application of Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), which held that the habitual offender statute did not authorize the imposition of consecutive habitual felony offender sentences for multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode), receded, from in part, Dixon v. State 730 So.2d 265, 269 n. 7 (Fla.1999)(finding that “defendants must have already filed their 3.850 motion seeking Hale relief, at the very latest, within two years of the date our mandate in Callaway issued on August 16,1995”).

Doll v. State, 917 So. 2d 881, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 7952, 2005 WL 1226151 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

917 So. 2d 881 (Doll v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related