Dowell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dowell v. State

17 So. 3d 343, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 13489, 2009 WL 2900497

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 11, 2009

Docket5D09-1284

StatusPublished

This text of 17 So. 3d 343 (Dowell 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

Dowell v. State, 17 So. 3d 343, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 13489, 2009 WL 2900497 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the trial court’s summary denial of Robert Dowell’s motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Dowell’s motion challenged his consecutive sentences as illegal, alleging a *344 double jeopardy violation based upon the facts related to his underlying convictions. Because Dowell’s motion did not “allege with particularity both the non-hearsay record documents that show an error on the face of the record, and ‘how and where’ the record demonstrates [that] the consecutive sentences” violate double jeopardy, Theophile v. State, 967 So.2d 948, 949 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), Dowell’s motion was facially insufficient. Id.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the trial court’s summary denial of Robert Dowell’s motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Dowell’s motion challenged his consecutive sentences as illegal, alleging a *344 double jeopardy violation based upon the facts related to his underlying convictions. Because Dowell’s motion did not “allege with particularity both the non-hearsay record documents that show an error on the face of the record, and ‘how and where’ the record demonstrates [that] the consecutive sentences” violate double jeopardy, Theophile v. State, 967 So.2d 948, 949 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), Dowell’s motion was facially insufficient. Id.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 So. 3d 343, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 13489, 2009 WL 2900497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dowell-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack