Luma v. State
903 So. 2d 302, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8558, 2005 WL 1342505
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Luma v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 2025 →
Opinion
Affirmed. See Forcelledo v. State, 898 So.2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)(“The State [303]*303is allowed to give notice under as many classifications as it chooses, where the State is prepared to show the defendant meets the statutory criteria.”); Cooper v. State, 817 So.2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(notice deficiency does not render a sentence “illegal” for the purposes of a rule 3.800 petition; claim should have been raised via 3.850 and is now time barred).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Luma v. State, 903 So. 2d 302, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8558, 2005 WL 1342505 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).
903 So. 2d 302 (Luma v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Cooper v. State
817 So. 2d 934 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Forcelledo v. State
898 So. 2d 1058 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)