Robinson v. State
696 So. 2d 958, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8171, 1997 WL 395256
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Robinson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8852 →
Opinion
Based upon our recent decision in Richardson v. State, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1498, - So.2d - [1997 WL 325600] (Fla. 1st DCA June 17, 1997) (criminal division en banc), we affirm the denial of appellant’s motion seeking post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). As in Richardson, we certify to the supreme court the following question:
ARE CONSECUTIVE HABITUAL FELONY OFFENDER SENTENCES FOR MULTIPLE OFFENSES ARISING FROM A SINGLE CRIMINAL EPISODE, PROSCRIBED BY HALE V. STATE, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), ILLEGAL WITHIN THE MEANING OF RULE 3.800(a), WHEN NO SINGLE SENTENCE EXCEEDS THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM PROVIDED BY LAW?
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Robinson v. State, 696 So. 2d 958, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8171, 1997 WL 395256 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).
696 So. 2d 958 (Robinson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hale v. State
630 So. 2d 521 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1993)
Richardson v. State
698 So. 2d 551 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)