Hall v. State

894 So. 2d 304, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 2019, 2005 WL 416001
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hall v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 821 So. 2d 1154
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 23, 2005·No. No. 3D04-1600·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Arthur Hall appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 3.800(a). The trial court denied the motion because the transcript clearly demonstrates that the trial judge did not become involved in the plea process. Although Rule 3.800(a) may not be the proper rule to raise a vindictive sentencing issue, we have nevertheless conducted an independent review of the record and agree with the trial court that the sentencing judge never became involved in the plea negotiations. Thus, we affirm the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief.

Affirmed.

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

Hall v. State, 894 So. 2d 304, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 2019, 2005 WL 416001 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

894 So. 2d 304 (Hall v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.