Lee v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lee v. State

891 So. 2d 1136, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 222, 2005 WL 94658

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 19, 2005

DocketNo. 4D04-4573

StatusPublished

This text of 891 So. 2d 1136 (Lee 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

Lee v. State, 891 So. 2d 1136, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 222, 2005 WL 94658 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Vincent Lee appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850/800(a) motion, which the trial court properly treated as a rule 3.800(a) motion. A rule 3.850 motion would have been impermissibly untimely and successive. The order of denial appears to contain a scrivener’s error, in that it bases the denial on the reasoning of the state’s response, yet no state’s response was attached. The office of the clerk of court indicates that no state response to this motion was ever filed. We nevertheless affirm, as neither ground of the motion challenging the defendant’s habitual sentence has any merit. See, e.g., Hollis v. State, 763 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Boyd v. State, 880 So.2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); McBride v. State, 884 So.2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

WARNER, POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Vincent Lee appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850/800(a) motion, which the trial court properly treated as a rule 3.800(a) motion. A rule 3.850 motion would have been impermissibly untimely and successive. The order of denial appears to contain a scrivener’s error, in that it bases the denial on the reasoning of the state’s response, yet no state’s response was attached. The office of the clerk of court indicates that no state response to this motion was ever filed. We nevertheless affirm, as neither ground of the motion challenging the defendant’s habitual sentence has any merit. See, e.g., Hollis v. State, 763 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Boyd v. State, 880 So.2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); McBride v. State, 884 So.2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

WARNER, POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

891 So. 2d 1136, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 222, 2005 WL 94658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack