McDonald v. State
814 So. 2d 1212, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5215, 2002 WL 663060
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in McDonald v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 742 So. 2d 830 →
Opinion
Adrian McDonald alleges that he did not have the predicate convictions to declare him a habitual offender. The trial court denied the motion as not cognizable under Rule 3.800(a). We reverse and remand for the trial court to consider whether it is apparent from the face of the record that McDonald did not have the requisite predicate felonies as a matter of law. Bover v. State, 797 So.2d 1246 (Fla.2001); Alloway v. State, 807 So.2d 187 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
McDonald v. State, 814 So. 2d 1212, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5215, 2002 WL 663060 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).
814 So. 2d 1212 (McDonald v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Bover v. State
797 So. 2d 1246 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2001)
Alloway v. State
807 So. 2d 187 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)