Lamar v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lamar v. State

650 So. 2d 1044, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 968, 1995 WL 46644

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 8, 1995

DocketNo. 93-3726

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 650 So. 2d 1044 (Lamar 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

Lamar v. State, 650 So. 2d 1044, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 968, 1995 WL 46644 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant has appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850. Defendant based his collateral attack on his conviction on alleged constitutional infirmities in his classification as a habitual felony offender, specifically, that he was designated for habitual offender status purely on the basis of race in violation of equal protection and due process rights under both the Florida and United States Constitutions. We reject defendant’s constitutional argument pursuant to the reasoning in our recent decision of Hartley v. State, 650 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). In addition, defendant does not raise the legality of the creation of the special habitual felony offender division by administrative order rather than local rule. However, in Hartley the defendant was assigned to the habitual offender division upon a determination that he met the criteria set forth in the administrative rule. Here, defendant’s case had already been assigned to Division V twenty months before Division V was converted to the habitual offender division. Accordingly, for all of these reasons, we affirm the denial of defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief.

HERSEY, FARMER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant has appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850. Defendant based his collateral attack on his conviction on alleged constitutional infirmities in his classification as a habitual felony offender, specifically, that he was designated for habitual offender status purely on the basis of race in violation of equal protection and due process rights under both the Florida and United States Constitutions. We reject defendant’s constitutional argument pursuant to the reasoning in our recent decision of Hartley v. State, 650 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). In addition, defendant does not raise the legality of the creation of the special habitual felony offender division by administrative order rather than local rule. However, in Hartley the defendant was assigned to the habitual offender division upon a determination that he met the criteria set forth in the administrative rule. Here, defendant’s case had already been assigned to Division V twenty months before Division V was converted to the habitual offender division. Accordingly, for all of these reasons, we affirm the denial of defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief.

HERSEY, FARMER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

650 So. 2d 1044, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 968, 1995 WL 46644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamar-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack