Massey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Massey v. State

643 So. 2d 1197, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 10142, 1994 WL 576109

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 21, 1994

DocketNo. 94-1849

StatusPublished

This text of 643 So. 2d 1197 (Massey 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

Massey v. State, 643 So. 2d 1197, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 10142, 1994 WL 576109 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant has alleged in a Rule 3.800(a) proceeding that his consecutive habitual offender sentences are illegal citing Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993) and Brooks v. State, 630 So.2d 527 (Fla.1993).¹ The trial court summarily denied the defendant’s motion on the basis that while the defendant was found to be a habitual offender the court did not impose enhanced sentences under the habitual offender statute. However, the trial court did not attach any portions of the record to support the summary denial of the defendant’s motion. Therefore, we reverse and remand to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach those portions of the record which refute the defendant’s claims. See Fla. R.App.P. 9.140(g).

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

DAUKSCH, COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant has alleged in a Rule 3.800(a) proceeding that his consecutive habitual offender sentences are illegal citing Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993) and Brooks v. State, 630 So.2d 527 (Fla.1993).¹ The trial court summarily denied the defendant’s motion on the basis that while the defendant was found to be a habitual offender the court did not impose enhanced sentences under the habitual offender statute. However, the trial court did not attach any portions of the record to support the summary denial of the defendant’s motion. Therefore, we reverse and remand to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach those portions of the record which refute the defendant’s claims. See Fla. R.App.P. 9.140(g).

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

DAUKSCH, COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

643 So. 2d 1197, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 10142, 1994 WL 576109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/massey-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack