Turner v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Turner v. State

804 So. 2d 1283, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 640, 2002 WL 100452

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 28, 2002

DocketNo. 1D00-4729

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 804 So. 2d 1283 (Turner 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

Turner v. State, 804 So. 2d 1283, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 640, 2002 WL 100452 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the summary denial of his motion, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), alleging that he was improperly given consecutive habitual offender sentences for convictions arising out of the same criminal episode, contrary to Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993). The trial court denied appellant’s motion, stating that it could not be raised pursuant to rule 3.800(a), and that it would be untimely if considered pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. However, appellant’s claim may properly be raised pursuant to rule 3.800(a) because he alleges that the illegality of the sentences is apparent from the face of the record. See, e.g., Valdes v. State, 765 So.2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

It appears from appellant’s motion and attachments thereto that in counts one and two of case numbers 92-636 and 92-649, he received consecutive habitual offender sentences for sale of, and possession with intent to sell, the same piece of cocaine in a single criminal episode. If this proves to be true, appellant would appear to be entitled to relief. See Green v. State, 643 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Accordingly, we reverse the order summarily denying appellant’s claim, and remand to the trial court with directions that it either attach to an order again denying the claim record excerpts conclusively refuting the claim, or resentence appellant.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

BOOTH and WEBSTER, JJ., and SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the summary denial of his motion, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), alleging that he was improperly given consecutive habitual offender sentences for convictions arising out of the same criminal episode, contrary to Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993). The trial court denied appellant’s motion, stating that it could not be raised pursuant to rule 3.800(a), and that it would be untimely if considered pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. However, appellant’s claim may properly be raised pursuant to rule 3.800(a) because he alleges that the illegality of the sentences is apparent from the face of the record. See, e.g., Valdes v. State, 765 So.2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

It appears from appellant’s motion and attachments thereto that in counts one and two of case numbers 92-636 and 92-649, he received consecutive habitual offender sentences for sale of, and possession with intent to sell, the same piece of cocaine in a single criminal episode. If this proves to be true, appellant would appear to be entitled to relief. See Green v. State, 643 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Accordingly, we reverse the order summarily denying appellant’s claim, and remand to the trial court with directions that it either attach to an order again denying the claim record excerpts conclusively refuting the claim, or resentence appellant.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

BOOTH and WEBSTER, JJ., and SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

804 So. 2d 1283, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 640, 2002 WL 100452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack