Hampton v. State
941 So. 2d 1198, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 18589, 2006 WL 3207934
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 8, 2006·No. No. 4D06-3423·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
Affirmed, without prejudice to appellant’s filing a timely and sufficient rule 3.850 motion alleging, if he can, that he does not actually qualify for sentencing as a habitual felony offender or as a prison releasee reoffender. Bover v. State, 797 So.2d 1246, 1251 n. 5 (Fla.2001); Adlington v. State, 840 So.2d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 859 So.2d 513 (Fla.2003); Macaluso v. State, 912 So.2d 694, 695-96 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hampton v. State, 941 So. 2d 1198, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 18589, 2006 WL 3207934 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).
941 So. 2d 1198 (Hampton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Barde v. State
221 So. 3d 657 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Morgan v. State
941 So. 2d 1198 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)