Hart v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hart v. State

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

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hart v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 773 So. 2d 1263 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 13, 2002·No. No. 3D00-2658·Published

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.

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

Pincite

811 So. 2d 785 (Hart v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related