JOSEPH W. ROBINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
JOSEPH W. ROBINSON, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
696 So. 2d 958
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1997)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Based upon our recent decision in Richardson v. State, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1498, - So. 2d - [1997 WL 325600] (Fla. 1st DCA June 17, 1997) (criminal division en banc), we affirm the denial of appellant’s motion seeking post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). As in Richardson, we certify to the supreme court the following question:
ARE CONSECUTIVE HABITUAL FELONY OFFENDER SENTENCES FOR MULTIPLE OFFENSES ARISING FROM A SINGLE CRIMINAL EPISODE, PROSCRIBED BY HALE V. STATE, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), ILLEGAL WITHIN THE MEANING OF RULE 3.800(a), WHEN NO SINGLE SENTENCE EXCEEDS THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM PROVIDED BY LAW?
AFFIRMED.
ALLEN, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Valdes v. State, 765 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…tconviction motion under rule 3.850. Because the defendant’s rule 3.800(a) motion was not sworn, the trial court declined to treat it as a timely motion under rule 3.850. The defendant appealed, but this order was also affirmed. See Valdez v. State, 696 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). On March 2, 1999, the defendant filed the rule 3.850 motion that is the subject of the present appeal. He argued that the motion was timely under Dixon v. State, 730 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1999), in which the supreme court extended th…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)