Valenzuela v. State
813 So. 2d 962, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1339, 2002 WL 192326
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Valenzuela v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8951 →
Opinion
AFFIRMED. The appellant’s motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) does not affirmatively allege that a prior offense essential to categorize him as a habitual offender does not exist, see Judge v. State, [963]*963596 So.2d 73, 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), rev. denied, 613 So.2d 5 (Fla.1992), and that the court records will demonstrate a clear entitlement to relief, see Baker v. State, 714 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Valenzuela v. State, 813 So. 2d 962, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1339, 2002 WL 192326 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).
813 So. 2d 962 (Valenzuela v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Baker v. State
714 So. 2d 1167 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Judge v. State
596 So. 2d 73 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)