Webb v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Webb v. State

786 So. 2d 20, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 5055, 2001 WL 376457

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 17, 2001

DocketNo. 1D00-2403

StatusPublished

This text of 786 So. 2d 20 (Webb 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

Webb v. State, 786 So. 2d 20, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 5055, 2001 WL 376457 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, appellant alleged that he is entitled to be resen-tenced in light of the supreme court’s decision in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). We affirm the denial of relief because there are factual issues as to whether appellant’s sentence would have fallen within the range of a properly computed 1994 seoresheet. See Lancaster v. State, 764 So.2d 835 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). It is worth noting that, unlike the defendant’s motion in Lancaster, appellant’s motion cannot be treated as if filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 because it would be facially insufficient if treated as such.

BOOTH, WOLF and LEWIS, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, appellant alleged that he is entitled to be resen-tenced in light of the supreme court’s decision in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). We affirm the denial of relief because there are factual issues as to whether appellant’s sentence would have fallen within the range of a properly computed 1994 seoresheet. See Lancaster v. State, 764 So.2d 835 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). It is worth noting that, unlike the defendant’s motion in Lancaster, appellant’s motion cannot be treated as if filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 because it would be facially insufficient if treated as such.

BOOTH, WOLF and LEWIS, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

786 So. 2d 20, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 5055, 2001 WL 376457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webb-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack