Hankin v. State
895 So. 2d 1127, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 882, 2005 WL 236532
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 2, 2005·No. No. 3D04-3263·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
Affirmed. See Cooper v. State, 817 So.2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (holding that a claim that a notice of intent to habitualize is not sufficiently specific must be raised in a Rule 3.850 motion).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hankin v. State, 895 So. 2d 1127, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 882, 2005 WL 236532 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).
895 So. 2d 1127 (Hankin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
City of Orlando v. MSD-MATTIE, LLC
895 So. 2d 1127 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)