Hart v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hart v. State

811 So. 2d 785, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 3043, 2002 WL 384517

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 13, 2002

DocketNo. 3D00-2658

StatusPublished

This text of 811 So. 2d 785 (Hart 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

Hart v. State, 811 So. 2d 785, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 3043, 2002 WL 384517 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

.PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order denying defendant’s Rule 3.800 motion. Defendant contends that he does not have the requisite convictions to qualify him as a habitual violent felony offender. The record fails to show that defendant is not entitled to relief. The court did not attach the certified judgment of a qualifying conviction. Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand for the necessary attachment or an evidentiary hearing.¹ See Thomas v. State, 642 So.2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

Reversed and remanded.

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

.PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order denying defendant’s Rule 3.800 motion. Defendant contends that he does not have the requisite convictions to qualify him as a habitual violent felony offender. The record fails to show that defendant is not entitled to relief. The court did not attach the certified judgment of a qualifying conviction. Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand for the necessary attachment or an evidentiary hearing.¹ See Thomas v. State, 642 So.2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

811 So. 2d 785, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 3043, 2002 WL 384517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack