Epps v. State

912 So. 2d 644, 2005 WL 2219268
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 14, 2005
Docket4D05-1753
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 912 So. 2d 644 (Epps 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
Epps v. State, 912 So. 2d 644, 2005 WL 2219268 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

912 So.2d 644 (2005)

Felton Ernest EPPS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D05-1753.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

September 14, 2005.

Felton Ernest Epps, DeFuniak Springs, pro se.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David M. Schultz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. A defective notice of intent to habitualize is a procedural error which does not result in an illegal sentence which can be raised in a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion. Moore v. State, 810 So.2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); *645 Hollis v. State, 763 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

WARNER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Martin v. State
952 So. 2d 529 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
912 So. 2d 644, 2005 WL 2219268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/epps-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.