Gibbs v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gibbs v. State

873 So. 2d 1271, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 7728, 2004 WL 1196977

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 2, 2004

DocketNo. 4D04-525

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 873 So. 2d 1271 (Gibbs 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

Gibbs v. State, 873 So. 2d 1271, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 7728, 2004 WL 1196977 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Daniel E. Gibbs, Sr. appeals the denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Gibbs challenged his consecutive habitual offender prison terms for possession and trafficking in cocaine. See Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993).

We reverse as Gibbs’s claim was not considered on the merits. The facts as detailed in Gibbs v. State, 698 So.2d 1206 (Fla.1997), quashing Gibbs v. State, 676 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), along with the trial excerpts provided by Gibbs to this court permit such review. The inquiry on remand is whether Gibbs’s claim for relief in light of Hale is apparent from the face of the record. See Nelson v. State, 855 So.2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Burgess v. State, 831 So.2d 137 (Fla.2002); Valdes v. State, 765 So.2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

FARMER, C.J., TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Daniel E. Gibbs, Sr. appeals the denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Gibbs challenged his consecutive habitual offender prison terms for possession and trafficking in cocaine. See Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993).

We reverse as Gibbs’s claim was not considered on the merits. The facts as detailed in Gibbs v. State, 698 So.2d 1206 (Fla.1997), quashing Gibbs v. State, 676 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), along with the trial excerpts provided by Gibbs to this court permit such review. The inquiry on remand is whether Gibbs’s claim for relief in light of Hale is apparent from the face of the record. See Nelson v. State, 855 So.2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Burgess v. State, 831 So.2d 137 (Fla.2002); Valdes v. State, 765 So.2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

FARMER, C.J., TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

873 So. 2d 1271, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 7728, 2004 WL 1196977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibbs-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack