Gentry v. State

652 So. 2d 518, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3576, 1995 WL 150285
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 7, 1995·No. No. 95-640·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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.

COBB, PETERSON and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

Gentry v. State, 652 So. 2d 518, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3576, 1995 WL 150285 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

652 So. 2d 518 (Gentry v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gentry v. State
659 So. 2d 490 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)