Harris v. State
827 So. 2d 382, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 14551, 2002 WL 31251693
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 9, 2002·No. No. 3D02-515·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
Elisarmes Harris appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. Assuming, without deciding, that the motion of defendant-appellant Harris is cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), the record conclusively refutes it. The plea colloquy on page 6 specifically states, ‘You are now sentenced as a habitual offender.” As to defendant’s claim that he does not qualify as a habitual offender, the qualifying offenses were specifically read into the record of the same plea colloquy.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Harris v. State, 827 So. 2d 382, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 14551, 2002 WL 31251693 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).
827 So. 2d 382 (Harris v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Mestres v. State
962 So. 2d 984 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)