Steelman v. State
This text of 801 So. 2d 960 (Steelman 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.
Opinion
Leonard STEELMAN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
SALCINES, Judge.
Leonard Steelman timely appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). His only claim is that he was sentenced in violation of Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993). This claim is facially insufficient as a rule 3.800(a) motion because he failed to assert that the determination of whether the offenses were part of the same criminal episode could be made without resort to extra-record facts. See Young v. State, 787 So.2d 259, 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We, therefore, affirm without prejudice to any right Mr. Steelman might *961 have to file a facially sufficient claim under rule 3.800(a).
Affirmed.
BLUE, C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
801 So. 2d 960, 2001 WL 1295477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steelman-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.