Dunbar v. State

842 So. 2d 244, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4753, 2003 WL 1823515
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Dunbar v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11471
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 9, 2003·No. No. 2D02-4226·Published

Opinion

STRINGER, Judge.

Terrell Dunbar challenges the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Dunbar argues that his sentence as a habitual felony offender is illegal based on Taylor v. State, 818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).1 We affirm the decision of the trial court because Dunbar does not affirmatively allege that he received a minimum mandatory sentence under section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2001), and was therefore affected by the amendments contained within chapter 99 188. Dunbar is therefore not entitled to relief under Taylor.

Affirmed.

WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.

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

Dunbar v. State, 842 So. 2d 244, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4753, 2003 WL 1823515 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

842 So. 2d 244 (Dunbar v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Taylor v. State
818 So. 2d 544 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)