Edwards v. State

652 So. 2d 852, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2060, 1995 WL 84586
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 3, 1995·No. No. 95-348·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

THOMPSON, Judge.

AFFIRMED. We affirm the summary denial of Edwards’ 3.800(a)1 motion for post-conviction relief without prejudice. Although Edwards argues that the court imposed improper consecutive habitual offender sentences because they arose out of a single factual event, Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994), the correct remedy to seek relief is a properly filed Rule 3.850 motion. See Massey v. State, 648 So.2d 785 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Borders v. State, 643 So.2d 110 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Callaway v. State, 642 So.2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (question certified).

HARRIS, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur.

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

Edwards v. State, 652 So. 2d 852, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2060, 1995 WL 84586 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

652 So. 2d 852 (Edwards v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Spires v. State
796 So. 2d 1245 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Jackson v. State
654 So. 2d 1267 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Humana of Florida, Inc. v. McKaughan
652 So. 2d 852 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)