Gentry v. State
This text of 652 So. 2d 518 (Gentry 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.
Opinion
The summary denial of Gentry’s 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence is affirmed without prejudice. Gentry alleges illegal consecutive habitual offender sentences under 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. Bunch v. State, 647 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Callaway v. State, 642 So.2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (question certified), review granted, (Fla. Feb. 15, 1995); Massey v. State, 648 So.2d 785 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
652 So. 2d 518, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3576, 1995 WL 150285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gentry-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.