Salazar v. State

757 So. 2d 1282, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6590, 2000 WL 690126
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 31, 2000·No. No. 4D00-1290·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s rule 3.800(a) Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence, but certify direct conflict with Heggs v. State, 718 So.2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), as to the applicable window period.

DELL, POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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

Salazar v. State, 757 So. 2d 1282, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6590, 2000 WL 690126 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

757 So. 2d 1282 (Salazar v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hansbrough v. State
757 So. 2d 1282 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)