Watson v. State

828 So. 2d 1054, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15091, 2002 WL 31307124
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 16, 2002·No. No. 2D02-3901·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Robert Watson appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Watson claimed that he received consecutive habitual felony offender sentences in violation of Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993). Because Watson failed to allege that it can be determined from the face of the record that the sentences are illegal, we affirm the trial court’s order without prejudice to any right that Watson may have to file a facially sufficient claim. See Johnson v. State, 809 So.2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, SALCINES and STRINGER, JJ., concur.

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

Watson v. State, 828 So. 2d 1054, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15091, 2002 WL 31307124 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

828 So. 2d 1054 (Watson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wachter v. State
868 So. 2d 629 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)