Torres v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Torres v. State

751 So. 2d 701, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 1055, 2000 WL 140190

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 9, 2000

DocketNo. 3D99-3108

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 751 So. 2d 701 (Torres 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

Torres v. State, 751 So. 2d 701, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 1055, 2000 WL 140190 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Roberto Miguel Torres appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He seeks to overturn his adjudication as a habitual offender, arguing that certified copies of his prior convictions were not introduced at the hearing, but the trial judge requested that they be filed after the hearing.

This court has held that a challenge to a habitual offender adjudication must be brought under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, not Rule 3.800(a), and is subject to the Rule 3.850 two-year time limit. See Bover v. State, 732 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), review granted, number 95,649 (Fla. Oct. 26, 1999); see also Moore v. State, 748 So.2d 1094 (Fla.App. 3d DCA Jan. 12, 2000). Contra Judge v. State, 596 So.2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (en banc). The claim is time-barred.

Assuming arguendo that there is no procedural bar, the claim is without merit. We have taken judicial notice of this court’s file in Torres v. State, number 99-1413, which contains the original plea colloquy. During that colloquy, defendant admitted the existence of each of the convictions which the trial court relied on for habitualization. There was no objection to the procedure followed by the trial court. The failure to introduce certified copies at the hearing was entirely harmless and is not a basis for declaring the sentence “illegal” under Rule 3.800(a).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Roberto Miguel Torres appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He seeks to overturn his adjudication as a habitual offender, arguing that certified copies of his prior convictions were not introduced at the hearing, but the trial judge requested that they be filed after the hearing.

This court has held that a challenge to a habitual offender adjudication must be brought under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, not Rule 3.800(a), and is subject to the Rule 3.850 two-year time limit. See Bover v. State, 732 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), review granted, number 95,649 (Fla. Oct. 26, 1999); see also Moore v. State, 748 So.2d 1094 (Fla.App. 3d DCA Jan. 12, 2000). Contra Judge v. State, 596 So.2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (en banc). The claim is time-barred.

Assuming arguendo that there is no procedural bar, the claim is without merit. We have taken judicial notice of this court’s file in Torres v. State, number 99-1413, which contains the original plea colloquy. During that colloquy, defendant admitted the existence of each of the convictions which the trial court relied on for habitualization. There was no objection to the procedure followed by the trial court. The failure to introduce certified copies at the hearing was entirely harmless and is not a basis for declaring the sentence “illegal” under Rule 3.800(a).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

751 So. 2d 701, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 1055, 2000 WL 140190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torres-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack